tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21045830252192767782018-05-23T22:51:47.792-07:00That we may love what You have commanded...This is the blog for Friends of University Lutheran Chapel in Minneapolis, Minnesota, FriendsOfULC.org.Administratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06152556530973824159noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2104583025219276778.post-31335547707411973622018-05-05T02:12:00.001-07:002018-05-23T22:51:47.752-07:00How Does What You Are Doing Differ From False Witness? We Should Make This A Formal Forensic Process<i>More than a few of you, dear readers, friends, correspondents, well wishers and others, inform me that after more than a year and a half of asking and waiting, my former district president has not yet corrected the public record and his public announcements that I have been removed from membership as a pastor in the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. So it has been safe to assume, for some time now, that this is no longer a mistake, but a deliberate effort to avoid telling the truth. The letter below seeks to correct the public record in a more formal process. <br><br>So feel free to share the information below and any of the documents given in the sources section with anyone you think can help make this happen. And please do continue to contact me with whatever ideas you may have, and if you find any other memos, announcements, letters, etc., that might shed some light on why such a simple task remains undone. I would also be interested in other pastors and church workers in our synod who have received similar treatment. I must reluctantly conclude that the behavior described here will continue until enough of us demand that it not be tolerated. Let's see what we can do about that. <br><br>As always, I'm glad to hear from those of you who have an interest. Please use the comment section of this blog, or use the contact information on lcms.org under the "locator" section, for church workers. </i><br><br>Dear President Hardy, <br><br>You have used our synod, our district, our praesidium, and our publications and web sites to print, circulate, and publish things about me which are not true. You have had the documentation demonstrating that these things are not true since August of 2016. <!--footnote--> <a href="#fnv01" id="frv01">[01]</a><!--footnote-->After asking you repeatedly to retract, correct and expunge these things, you have left these untruths unretracted, unexpunged and uncorrected for over 18 months. These false assertions were easily correctable errors and avoidable mistakes which you could easily remedy. After asking and waiting for over a year and half for you to correct your demonstrably false statements about me, I must conclude that your failure to do so is intentional and malicious. You have used your position and your membership in our synod to sacrifice and damage someone else's reputation, ordination, vocation and ability to earn a living rather tell the truth and correct what you have done. <br><br>The next step should start with dispute resolution. Every day that you fail to correct what you have put in print is another day that you circulate falsehoods about me. If you are willing to do that for this length of time in my case, I must wonder how many others in your district and in our synod have been affected by your malicious refusal to correct your errors. So let's get started on the process quickly. <br><br>I find this particular path you have chosen to be very strange, sad and regrettable. This began with an easily avoidable, and easily correctable, mistake by your office. You had the dates of my clergy roster membership wrong by one year. <!--footnote--><a href="#fnv02" id="frv02">[02]</a><!--footnote--> You compounded this error by fabricating other, equally false reasons for removing me from our clergy roster in July of 2016. <!--footnote--><a href="#fnv03" id="frv03">[03]</a><!--footnote--> These reasons and claims used to justify your actions have been proven to be fabrications. The truth is simple: I was a member of synod from January of 2009 until January of 2017. I received, and accepted, a call as Chaplain to a Recognized Service Organization in the second week of July 2016, six months before January of 2017. A week later, on July 17, 2016, you removed me from the clergy roster. You claimed my membership in synod had expired January 31, 2016. That assertion is demonstrably false. Correspondence from your own office documented that I was a member of synod from January of 2009 to 2017. <br><br>In your letter of July 18, 2016, you claimed that you had not heard from me when you invited me to apply to continue my non-candidate status as a member of synod. That is an astonishing claim for you to make, and it is a deceit that covers a multitude of deceits. What you and your office heard from me repeatedly, by email and fedex from May to July of 2016, was exactly what happened: I accepted a call as a chaplain to a Recognized Service Organization, the Saint Timothy Society; I could apply for non-candidate status, but I did not know how I would do that after accepting a call; and I suggested you might want to double check your chronology for the years of my membership on the clergy roster. <!--footnote--><a href="#fnv04" id="frv04">[04]</a><!--footnote-->This was very simple: I remain in the English District, accept the call, and the RSO then goes to whatever district wishes to have it. But, instead, you managed to remove one of your pastors two weeks after he had accepted a call and six months before his membership in synod would expire. <br><br>From August of 2016 until recently I believed that you made a series of easily avoidable mistakes, which you compounded with easily correctable errors, all of which you would remedy and that you would correct the public record. After this length of time, you have made this charitable assumption impossible. You have been asked for over a year and a half to correct the untruths which you circulated and published, and you have not. Regrettably, I now have to document, once again, that you have chosen to fabricate in order to avoid telling the truth. The truth is that I have never been restricted or suspended as a pastor in our synod. You, however, wrote on July 18, 2016 that I was restricted (by quoting bylaw 2.13.2.1(b)) and suspended (by quoting bylaw 2.13.4). These are just two public claims on your part that are outrageous. <!--footnote--><a href="#fnv05" id="frv05">[05]</a><!--footnote--> Neither you nor your office (nor any of your predecessors) ever mentioned either of these prior to that date. You, as my district president at the time, would have to have known this, because there is a process for both of these categories that creates documentation, a paper trail, and a formal procedure that involves a number of people. These have not happened and do not exist because none of these things has ever occurred in my case. As my district president at the time, it would be very important for you to determine the source of these lies, correct them, and also determine how long, to what extent, and by what method they had been spread, and remedy and correct them. <br><br>It is now also necessary for you to explain why you would fabricate these false claims which you had never mentioned before to justify your action in removing me from our clergy roster on July 18, 2016. Why do that if you truly believed that your stated reason (that after inviting me to apply for an extension over the last few months you "had not heard from me") was somehow valid? Both, of course, are fabrications, but if you believed the first set of fabrications, why would you need to publish the second set? <br><br>You repeated this pattern on August 23, 2016 when you wrote to our synod's business manager that I was "removed from the roster of Ordained Ministers... in accord with Bylaw 2.11.2.3 (b) for non-compliance", and that this was a "misunderstanding" which would be corrected. <!--footnote--><a href="#fnv06" id="frv06">[06]</a><!--footnote--> This introduces a third set of falsehoods. Neither you nor your office mentioned bylaw 2.11.2.3 (which involves non-candidates and annual reports) before this date. Again, why introduce yet another set of fictions if you believed that your earlier set were true? This is another fabrication, just like your fabrication of my being removed because my membership was restricted and suspended. <br><br>Your letter of August 23, 2016 attempts to correct in private an action you took in public while continuing and leaving the lies you committed in public uncorrected. You need to correct the action you took and the fictions used to justify them in the same way they were committed: in public, and not in private. This letter attempts to evade that responsibility by fabricating a different fiction as your reason, one that is also untrue but which appears to be more plausible than the earlier fictions used to justify your action. <br><br>You repeated this fiction yet again in March of 2017 with your corrected memo to "Rev. Matthew Harrison, President" and "All District Presidents & Administrative Assistants" which you back dated to July 20, 2016. In it you wrote that I was removed from "the Roster of Ordained Ministers of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod by action of the District President, effective July 18, 2016, in accord with Bylaw 2.11.2.3 (b) for non-compliance. Therefore, he is no longer eligible for call consideration." <!--footnote--><a href="#fnv07" id="frv07">[07]</a><!--footnote--> You circulated this nine months after I had accepted a call to a Recognized Service Organization, eight months after I had been transferred from the English District to the Minnesota South District, and eight months after you had privately corrected your "misunderstanding" about my removal in your letter of August 23, 2016. It was also after months of correspondence with you and your office detailing exactly what I have been doing and that I would soon accept a call, and years of correspondence with your office and your predecessors detailing my activities as an advisory member of synod. <br><br>Why would you not tell the truth about an action you reversed eight months prior? If your action was indeed a "misunderstanding" which you would correct (as you described it in August of 2016), what is the point of claiming it as your excuse eight months later? <br><br>The Large Catechism explains that observance of the Eighth Commandment is vital because failing to tell the truth by engaging in false witness is so corrosive. This corrodes our life together, our ability to live out our vocations, and even the simple and necessary act of communication. The frightening prospect here is that you may have corroded and destroyed your own credibility and ability to function as a member of our synod. This is a head spinning series of not just unproven assertions, but claims you have made that are impossible and demonstrated to be untrue. Your corrected memo of March of 2017 claims that you removed me in July of 2016 for none of the reasons you stated in the July of 2016 memos and letters, but rather for a reason that you did not mention at all until a month after the fact (in August of 2016, when you reversed my removal). Your corrected memo also claims that I am ineligible for a call eight months after I had accepted a call, and nine months after I had been transferred to the Minnesota South District. And it also entirely omits the facts you have known to be true for months prior to the distribution of your corrected memo. <br><br>I would like to begin the dispute resolution process with a factual basis, including the documentation I provided you in August of 2016, and much of which is also here on this web site (http://Blog.FriendsOfULC.org) in .pdf format. Much of it is from your own office. I expect you to do the same, and produce evidence, proof or documentation that what I have detailed above is incorrect. If you cannot do this, then it will be incumbent upon you to correct the public record following the text I have already suggested, and with an apology for the excessive length of time it has taken you to do this. <!--footnote--><a href="#fnv08" id="frv08">[08]</a><!--footnote--><br><br>You will have to explain your motives and rationale. But after waiting this much time for you to tell the truth about me I do have an insight you might consider. You apparently believe it is acceptable for you to sacrifice the reputation of your fellow pastors rather than admit, accept responsibility for, and correct your errors and mistakes. You also appear willing to use your position as an officer in our synod to ignore your fellow pastors when they provide you evidence that you have made a mistake. I would suggest you reconsider that approach. The problem and the concern I have is not just for myself, but also for the pastors and church workers you might have removed, might wish to remove in the future, or have otherwise damaged. If I could be removed for fabricated and fictitious reasons the public record of which has not been corrected for well over a year, how many of them were removed, disciplined, or otherwise adversely affect in the same way? Were they able to have their reputation and membership in our synod restored, and the public record corrected? <br><br>As a first step let's start with my request to you on August 23, 2016 and which I have repeated several times, that you completely and accurately correct the public record in the way I have already detailed for you in our previous correspondence. <!--footnote--><a href="#fnv09" id="frv09">[09]</a><!--footnote--> The second step is that you discover, correct and remedy the source of the untruths and fabrications directed toward me and any other member of our synod you may have removed or otherwise negatively affected using falsehoods such as these for pretexts. If these are resolved successfully then we can try to resolve whatever else remains. <br><br>In the meantime, however, I have to insist that you stop making up reasons to justify something you should never have done in the first place. It would be very wrong for you to continue to delay, prolong or stonewall the dispute resolution process by fabricating spurious and untrue claims, as it has been wrong for you all this time to delay, prolong and stonewall the very simple process of correcting the untruths you have placed in the public record about me. Before this occurred in July of 2016, I had no problem with you or the English District; just the opposite. In fact I wrote to you and your office in June of 2016 that I would like to remain in the English District and have you change my status to active after I accepted the call in July. I also saw you at our conference in October of 2015 at the Cenacle Retreat Center in Chicago and asked you if you needed anything from me. If you did have a problem with me when you were my district president, you needed to say so at the time. I would have been happy to remain in your district and have that discussion with you, and we would have had plenty of opportunities to do that because I attend all the meetings I can. <br><br> Let's get started very soon and not waste any more time. I will continue to post the relevant documentation here on Blog.FriendsOfULC.org to save the time and expense of mail, fedex, etc. <br><br> Sincerely, <br><br>Gordon Bynum <br><br>Chaplain <br><br>The Saint Timothy Society for Lutheran Seminary Scholarship <br><br><h2><div id="v-endnotes">Endnotes:</div></h2> <div id="fnv01"><!--endnote reference--><a href="#frv01">[01]</a><!--endnote reference-->I pointed out a number of errors to you, including the years of my term of membership, as early as August 23, 2016 by email. See <a href="#cnv013" id="crv013">[013]</a> below. </div><br> <div id="fnv02"><!--footnote reference--><a href="#frv02">[02]</a><!--footnote reference-->Your office received my application for Inactive Status beginning in January of 2009 on February 25, 2008. It consisted of three items: A cover letter from President Stechholz dated January 2008 (see <a href="#cnv001" id="crv001">[001]</a> below); My application for Inactive Status dated February 25, 2008; (see <a href="#cnv002" id="crv002">[002]</a> below); and my email from March 3, 2008, verifying your office had received the application by fax and mail (see <a href="#cnv003" id="crv003">[003]</a> below). <br><br>These establish I was a candidate for all of 2008 (starting in January of 2001 and ending in January of 2009). I could not have begun a term on Inactive Status (Candidate, Non-Candidate, or Emeritus) before January of 2009. Also notice in the emails and in the forms that I explicitly ask "when the Council of Presidents decide[s] on CRM applications. If they decide that I should not continue past 2009 January, you can tell Bishop Ritt I said, 'Put me in, coach!'". <br><br>As I wrote to your office (David Stechholz was the District President then) on several occassions and again in February of 2008, I had completed my work for the seminary of the TAALC (The American Association of Lutheran Churches) as their Academic Dean, and in 2007 I was one of the original directors organizing the Saint Timothy Society (a 501c3 organization, and now a synodical RSO for which I have been the Chaplain since July of 2016). </div><br> <div id="fnv03"><!--footnote reference--><a href="#frv03">[03]</a><!--footnote reference-->On July 18, 2016, you claimed that I had been suspended and restricted as a pastor (See <a href="#cnv011" id="crv011">[011]</a> and <a href="#cnv012" id="crv012">[012]</a> below). On August 23, 2016 and again on March 24, 2017, you claimed I had been removed for being "non-compliant" (See <a href="#cnv014" id="crv014">[014]</a> and <a href="#cnv017" id="crv017">[017]</a> below). </div> <br><div id="fnv04"><!--footnote reference--><a href="#frv04">[04]</a><!--footnote reference-->Note the correspondence between your office and myself from May 17 to June 24, 2016 (See <a href="#cnv019" id="crv019">[019]</a> below), especially that from June 23rd and June 24th. Two District Presidents wrote recommendations in support of the Saint Timothy Society's application to become a Recognized Service Organization, Dan May (Indiana District) and Lane Seitz (Minnesota South). Either of those districts, or the English, would have been fine for the district of membership for the Saint Timothy Society as an RSO. </div> <br><div id="fnv05"><!--footnote reference--><a href="#frv05">[05]</a><!--footnote reference-->See <a href="#cnv012" id="crv012">[012]</a> and <a href="#cnv013" id="crv013">[013]</a> below. </div><br> <div id="fnv06"><!--footnote reference--><a href="#frv06">[06]</a><!--footnote reference-->See <a href="#cnv014" id="crv014">[014]</a> below. </div><br> <div id="fnv07"><!--footnote reference--><a href="#frv07">[07]</a><!--footnote reference-->See See <a href="#cnv017" id="crv017">[017]</a> below. </div><br> <div id="fnv08"><!--footnote reference--><a href="#frv08">[08]</a><!--footnote reference-->My letter to you dated May 17, 2018, suggests specific text and steps you could follow. See See <a href="#cnv018" id="crv018">[018]</a> below. </div><br> <div id="fnv09"><!--footnote reference--><a href="#frv09">[09]</a><!--footnote reference-->See <a href="#cnv013" id="crv013">[013]</a>, <a href="#cnv016" id="crv016">[016]</a> and <a href="#cnv017" id="crv017">[017]</a> below, as well as the other entries on this blog, https://Blog.FriendsOfULC.org </div><br><h2>Cited and Referenced Sources: </h2><i>[Numbered links] return to beginning of Endnotes section. <br>https links opens document in another window. </i><br><br><a href="#v-endnotes" id="cnv001">[001]</a>2008 January, Letter, from District President David Stechholz: <a href="https://goo.gl/77wdzn" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/77wdzn</a>. <br><br><a href="#v-endnotes" id="cnv002">[002]</a>February 25, 2008, Application for Inactive Status: <a href="https://goo.gl/Z8AKjy" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/Z8AKjy</a><br><br><a href="#v-endnotes" id="cnv003">[003]</a>March 3, 2008, Email, Gordon Bynum to President's Office, English District: <a href="https://goo.gl/HM7oFR" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/HM7oFR</a><br><br><a href="#v-endnotes" id="cnv004">[004]</a>May 16, 2016, Email, English District to Gordon Bynum: <a href="https://goo.gl/CNqjor" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/CNqjor</a><br><br><a href="#v-endnotes" id="cnv005">[005]</a>May 16, 2016, Email, Gordon Bynum to English District: <a href="https://goo.gl/EWJXPc" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/EWJXPc</a><br><br><a href="#v-endnotes" id="cnv006">[006]</a>May 17, 2016, Email, English District to Gordon Bynum: <a href="https://goo.gl/39fj1J" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/39fj1J</a><br><br><a href="#v-endnotes" id="cnv007">[007]</a>June 21, 2016, Email, Gordon Bynum to English District: <a href="https://goo.gl/tfWoJs" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/tfWoJs</a><br><br><a href="#v-endnotes" id="cnv008">[008]</a>June 23, 2016, Letter, (by Fedex) Gordon Bynum to Jamison Hardy: <a href="https://goo.gl/dAeMpv" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/dAeMpv</a><br><br><a href="#v-endnotes" id="cnv009">[009]</a>July 5, 2016, Letter, Dorothy Krans, Director of Recognized Service Organizaions, LC-MS: <a href="https://goo.gl/UxQrJJ" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/UxQrJJ</a><br><br><a href="#v-endnotes" id="cnv010">[010]</a>July 8, 2016, Call Letter, Chaplain, Saint Timothy Society to Gordon Bynum: <a href="https://goo.gl/fSRTkr" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/fSRTkr</a><br><br><a href="#v-endnotes" id="cnv011">[011]</a>July 18, 2016, Letter, Jamison Hardy to Gordon Bynum: <a href="https://goo.gl/YXkgXh" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/YXkgXh</a><br><br><a href="#v-endnotes" id="cnv012">[012]</a>July 18, 2016, Memo, Jamison Hardy to President Matthew Harrison, All District Presidents and Administrative Assistants: <a href="https://goo.gl/5d5k3h" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/5d5k3h</a><br><br><a href="#v-endnotes" id="cnv013">[013]</a>August 23, 2016, Email, Gordon Bynum to Jamison Hardy: <a href="https://goo.gl/EWy1og" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/EWy1og</a><br><br><a href="#v-endnotes" id="cnv014">[014]</a>August 23, 2016, Letter, Jamison Hardy to Eugene Weeke: <a href="https://goo.gl/jDAX39" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/jDAX39</a><br><br><a href="#v-endnotes" id="cnv015">[015]</a>August 24, 2016, Tranfer Form for Gordon Bynum, Jamison Hardy, English District, to Minnesota South District: <a href="https://goo.gl/1EK8bC" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/1EK8bC</a><br><br><a href="#v-endnotes" id="cnv016">[016]</a>March 17, 2017, Letter, Gordon Bynum to Jamison Hardy, : <a href="https://goo.gl/BA3ewb" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/BA3ewb</a><br><br><a href="#v-endnotes" id="cnv017">[017]</a>March 24, 2017, Corrected Memo, (Dated July 20, 2017) Jamison Hardy to President Matthew Harrison, All District Presidents and Administrative Assistants: <a href="https://goo.gl/brBzeD" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/brBzeD</a><br><br><a href="#v-endnotes" id="cnv018">[018]</a>May 17, 2017, Letter, Gordon Bynum to Jamison Hardy: <a href="https://goo.gl/i2wNEp" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/i2wNEp</a><br><br><a href="#v-endnotes" id="cnv019">[019]</a>May 17 - June 24, 2016, Correspondence between English District and Gordon Bynum: <a href="https://bit.ly/2IGTUQ8" target="_blank">https://bit.ly/2IGTUQ8</a>Administratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06152556530973824159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2104583025219276778.post-72421295229418933522017-11-08T15:58:00.001-08:002018-05-23T22:27:02.146-07:00So How Is The Progress On The Retractions And Corrections?<i>You, Dear Readers, are the best. <a href="#en-pa" id="er-pa" id="er-pa">[a]</a>Your help has been vital in addressing the earlier events described here and at Blog.2Realms.com, and you have made all the difference in standing up for "whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report". You have held fast to these things when both the church and the world considers these virtues to be dispensable and inconvenient, from the sale of the University Lutheran Chapel property in Minneapolis to the sale of the KFUO frequency licence in Saint Louis. Thank you! <br><br>Quite a few of you have asked how it can be that I have remained a pastor in the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod when the public notices, announcements, and memos from July of 2016 remain unretracted and uncorrected, and say otherwise. I have been asking that myself since some of you brought my removal to my attention, something of which I had been unaware since I had accepted a call as Chaplain of a new Recognized Service Organization (RSO) of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) the second week of July of 2016. After waiting a year and half for the retractions and corrections, I think it best to post here, on this blog, documentation of my efforts. So my removal from the pastoral roster of the LCMS did not occur (being expunged and reversed in August of 2016), but the published announcements say that it did, and have yet to be corrected. <br><br>So God Bless you for all your help. The following letter may be of some interest. <a href="#en-pb" id="er-pb" id="er-pb">[b]</a> </i><br><br>Dear President Hardy, <br><br>It has been a year and a half since your effort to remove me from the synod's pastoral roster was reversed. And yet, here we are, many months from August of 2016 when you reversed the action my removal, but not the public notices, announcements and memos saying that I have been removed from our synod's clergy roster. So my removal has been reversed, but the public notices have not been corrected and retracted. So you seem to be having some difficulty completing the task you began so many months ago. Given this length of time and the number of months since the Lutheran Reporter published your announcement of my being removed, I thought it best to publish this letter, our other correspondence, and related documentation on <a href="http://Blog.FriendsOfULC.org">Blog.FriendsOfULC.org</a>. That blog is a better way for me to let others know how it came about that I have not been removed from our synod's clergy roster, yet the various public notices say otherwise, and have not been corrected. Pointing them to the correspondence and materials on the blog is much more efficient. You will also be able to read most, if not all, of the relevant documentation on the blog. I will put the links to the materials in the footnotes, which will point to .pdf files which can be viewed and downloaded. And I will place future correspondence to you on that blog, where it can be easily accessed by you. <br><br>In summary, after some correspondence in May and June of 2016 I wrote to you and your office on June 21st and 23rd of 2016 (by email and fedex) that I would shortly accept a call as a Chaplain to a new Recognized Service Organization (RSO), the Saint Timothy Society. After receiving the synod's letter accepting them as an RSO on July 5th of 2016, the Saint Timothy Society formally extended the call to me on July 8th of 2016, which I accepted a few days later. <!--footnote--><a href="#en-p01" id="er-p01">[01]</a><!--footnote--> <!--footnote--><a href="#en-p02" id="er-p02">[02]</a><!--footnote--> Shortly thereafter, you removed me from membership as a pastor in the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod on July 18, <!--footnote--><a href="#en-p03" id="er-p03">[03]</a><!--footnote--> and then on August 23rd and 24th my removal was expunged, and you transferred my membership to the Minnesota South District as a pastoral candidate accepting a call as Chaplain to the Saint Timothy Society. <!--footnote--><a href="#en-p04" id="er-p04">[04]</a><!--footnote--> <br><br>For reasons which I (and others) cannot fathom, you are having difficulty with the retraction, correction, and expunging of the various public notices and memos you placed on the synod's website, in the Reporter, and published to "President Matthew Harrison, All District Presidents and Administrative Assistants" of my being removed. <!--footnote--><a href="#en-p05" id="er-p05">[05]</a><!--footnote-->I had always assumed that, as my District President at the time, you would be glad to know in June of 2016 that I would shortly receive, and accept, a call to a new synodical RSO in July of 2016. And, likewise, that you were delighted to correct your error when you attempted to remove me from the pastoral roster later that same July. And, again, that you would be equally delighted to retract and correct the public announcements of my removal, because, well, I had not, and have not, been removed from our synod's roster of pastors. <br><br>To paraphrase the old bidding prayer, "Let it be our care and delight to prepare ourselves to hear again the message", that, joyously, your earlier public notices are retracted and corrected. So let me do my part, once again, as I did in August of 2016 and repeatedly thereafter, to encourage you that you may have no hesitation about completing the task you began so long ago. And to dispel any confusion you might have, let me, once again, demonstrate that your error was in your effort to remove me from the clergy roster in the first place. As I and others have pointed out, your publicly stated reasons for my removal have, in addition to being proven false, differ from document to document, and appear to be less premise and more pretext. So let's cut through the various other defects and inadequacies and concentrate on just one or two (of the many) that caused my removal being expunged. Remarkably, you had the years wrong. The term of my pastoral membership in the synod began in 2009 and would have ended in 2017. You somehow managed to confuse 2009 for 2008 and 2017 for 2016. This was demonstrated to you with documentation a year and a half ago, but, so that we might not despair, let us do so again. Here yet again is the text of the letter I sent to you in August of 2016 from District President Stechholz, addressed to me and dated 2008 January, which states: <br><br><blockquote>On January 1, 2001, you were granted membership in the Synod as a Candidate Member. Bylaw 2.11.2.2 (a) states that those individuals granted Candidate Status "may be continued on the roster for a period not to exceed four years by act of the president of the district through which the person holds membership." The purpose of this letter is to inform you that <b><i>your membership in the Synod, as a Candidate Member, will come to an end on January 1, 2009</i></b>. <!--footnote--><a href="#en-p06" id="er-p06">[06]</a><!--footnote--></blockquote><br><br>It would be impossible for me to have been granted "membership in the Synod" in 2008, because I was a Candidate Member until January 1, 2009. The application forms <!--footnote--><a href="#en-p07" id="er-p07">[07]</a><!--footnote--> sent with that letter were returned to the English District in February of 2008. I also replied to that with an email to the English District, and received a response that the application had been received. <!--footnote--><a href="#en-p08" id="er-p08">[08]</a><!--footnote--> <br><br> I was granted membership in synod as a candidate from 2001 to 2009. That was followed by my membership in the synod (as a candidate or non-candidate pastor) from 2009 to 2017. I could not have been granted membership status as a non-candidate in 2008. That happened in 2009, and the Council of Presidents could grant or decline my "non-candidate status" for another eight year term beginning in January of 2017, and not in 2016. <br><br>Your mistake of one calendar year would have mattered little, if at all, had you not attempted to remove me from the clergy roster some two weeks after I had accepted a call. In doing so, you made a simple and correctable error on your part (which would have resolved itself) into a series of errors, which you now need to correct. <br><br>Another notable and bizarre defect is apparent in your letter to me dated July 18, 2016, which states: <br><blockquote>We have in our English District records that your non-candidate status expired January 31, 2016. Over the last several months, letters and emails were sent to you, inviting you to write a letter to the Council of Presidents requesting an extension. Since the English District did not hear back from you, on July 18, 2016, Bishop Jamison J. Hardy made the decision to remove you from the LCMS roster in accord with Bylaw 2:13.2.1 (b) and 2.13.4 for non-compliance. <!--footnote--><a href="#en-p09" id="er-p09">[09]</a><!--footnote--><!--footnote--><a href="#en-p10" id="er-p10">[10]</a><!--footnote--></blockquote><br><br>As you have known for over a year and a half, none of this is correct. I contacted you and your office numerous times in writing between May and July of 2016, copies of which you can find in the footnote links below. You knew in June I would be accepting a call in the next few weeks. Neither bylaw cited would apply, and neither would "non-compliance". <br><br>Not only is the letter incorrect, at least two of the stated reasons are bizarre fabrications. Your letter has cited by-law 2.13.2.1(b), which refers to something called "restricted status". But I have never been on restricted status, or anything of the kind. I have been suggested for call lists, I had been in the English District for about 25 years, and no one has ever suggested to me that I am "incapable of performing the duties of the office or position because of physical, mental, or emotional disability". How would it be possible for you to get that wrong when the bylaw itself requires someone to be "notified in writing as to the specific reasons for having been placed on restricted status" and that notice be given "in writing the President of the Synod and all other district presidents of such restricted status"? <br><br>Your letter also cites bylaw 2.13.4, which is even more outrageous. Bylaw 2.13.14 refers to something called suspended status, and the process of expulsion from the synod. Not only have I never been on restricted status, but, likewise, I have never been placed on suspended status, or anything of the kind. And, again, it seems impossible for you commit this as an inadvertent error, because like bylaw 2.13.2.1, it requires written notice, and also a formal process. <br><br> So I am perplexed as to why you would not hurry with delight to retract and correct your memos and notices which contain things about me which you have known for quite some time are not true, and which appear to be fabricated to justify an action which never should have occurred, and which you have already reversed and expunged. <!--footnote--><a href="#en-p11" id="er-p11">[11]</a><!--footnote--><br><br> And, of course, this is in addition to all the other reasons you already have to finish the corrections you began in August of 2016, and more reasons why the mistake in July of 2016 should not have happened at all. So let this knowledge encourage you and speed you along in finishing the corrections you began in August of 2016 when you reversed the mistake of the previous July. <!--footnote--><a href="#en-p12" id="er-p12">[12]</a><!--footnote-->Now you can rest assured that you no longer need to try to defend or excuse something that never should have happened in the first place by fabricating specious reasons such as "non-compliance" and bylaws which concern things that have never applied to me. <!--footnote--><a href="#en-p13" id="er-p13">[13]</a><!--footnote--> That burden is lifted, because, in addition to all the other easily avoidable and correctable errors, inaccuracies, and fabrications, you had the wrong years for my roster membership. Fix the dates at your next convention, fix the errors in the announcements and memos, and these correctable errors will be reversed in the same venues in which they were originally made. I have already described how this can be done, and the wording, in my letter to you in May of 2017. I will post them on this blog as well. <br><br>Sincerely, <br><br>Gordon Bynum <br><br>Chaplain <br><br>The Saint Timothy Society for Lutheran Seminary Scholarship <h2><div id="p-endnotes">Endnotes:</div></h2><div id="en-pa"><!--footnote reference--><a href="#er-pa">[a]</a><!--footnote reference-->You, Dear Reader, might object that this is an over generalization, too kind and too generous. Well, perhaps, but I say take whatever compliments you can get. <br><br>For those who are not members of, or less familiar with, the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, the following letter probably uses terminology that is unfamiliar. "Clergy Roster", "Member of Synod", "Candidate", refer to ordained clergy who hold membership in the "synod" (or LCMS, or Missouri Synod). "Non-Candidate Members" of the LCMS no longer exist; that category was eliminated after 15 years (or so) in 2016. If you find that confusing, you are not alone. </div><br><div id="en-pb"><!--footnote reference--><a href="#er-pb">[b]</a><!--footnote reference-->Some of you have suggested that since the notices were published in the Reporter, an official publication of the church, and to the Council of Presidents, that they should take it upon themselves to retract and correct them, since they can easily determine the notices are incorrect. I agree with you completely. However, I am told that only the district president who published the notices can retract and correct them. Some of you have also pointed out that rule sounds like a tremendous liability for any corporation (religious or otherwise). Again, I do not disagree. </div><br> <div id="en-p01"><!--footnote reference--><a href="#er-p01">[01]</a><!--footnote reference-->That upcoming call was the subject of my email to your office sent June 21, 2016, and a letter sent to you by Fedex on June 23, 2016. A .pdf version of the letter is at this URL: <a href="https://goo.gl/dAeMpv" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/dAeMpv</a>. A copy of the call letter of July 8, 2016 in .pdf format is at this URL: <a href="https://goo.gl/fSRTkr" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/fSRTkr</a>. </div><br><div id="en-p02"><!--footnote reference--><a href="#er-p02">[02]</a><!--footnote reference-->The letter from the office of Recognized Service Organizations (RSO) of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod of July 5, 2016 in .pdf format is at this URL: <a href="https://goo.gl/UxQrJJ" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/UxQrJJ</a> in a new window. </div><br><div id="en-p03"><!--footnote reference--><a href="#er-p03">[03]</a><!--footnote reference--> A .pdf file of your letter removing me from the clergy roster is here: <a href="https://goo.gl/YXkgXh" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/YXkgXh</a>. Your memo to the synodical president, "All District Presidents and Administrative Assistants" is found on page 2 of this link: <a href="https://goo.gl/5d5k3h" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/5d5k3h</a>. </div><br><div id="en-p04"><!--footnote reference--><a href="#er-p04">[04]</a><!--footnote reference--> Your letter of August 23, 2016 is at this link <a href="https://goo.gl/jDAX39" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/jDAX39</a> as a .pdf file, and your transfer form dated August 24, 2016 at the link <a href="https://goo.gl/1EK8bC" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/1EK8bC</a>. </div><br><div id="en-p05"><!--footnote reference--><a href="#er-p05">[05]</a><!--footnote reference--> My requests for this began in July of 2016 by email and were followed by letter, on March 17, 2017 (at this link: <a href="https://goo.gl/BA3ewb" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/BA3ewb</a>), and on May 17, 2017 (at this link: <a href="https://goo.gl/i2wNEp" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/i2wNEp</a>). That last link contains is a corrected version; I made a mistake in the year of the announcement I am requesting you place in your next convention workbook. </div><br><div id="en-p06"><!--footnote reference--><a href="#er-p06">[06]</a><!--footnote reference-->I have added the bold italics for emphasis. President Stechholz's letter dated 2008 January is at this URL: <a href="https://goo.gl/77wdzn" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/77wdzn</a>. </div><br><div id="en-p07"><!--footnote reference--><a href="#er-p07">[07]</a><!--footnote reference-->At least two forms (and possibly more; these are the two I have found so far), including an application (.pdf at this link: <a href="https://goo.gl/Z8AKjy" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/Z8AKjy</a>). </div><br><div id="en-p08"><!--footnote reference--><a href="#er-p08">[08]</a><!--footnote reference-->The reference to 2009 is clear in President Stechholz's letter, and also mentioned in the email thread from March of 2008 (.pdf version is at this link: <a href="https://goo.gl/HM7oFR" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/HM7oFR</a>. My email from March 3, 2008 asks: <blockquote>I don't think there's any hurry at the moment, but it would good to know when the Council of Presidents decide on CRM applications. If they decide that I should not continue past 2009 January, you can tell Bishop Ritt I said, "Put me in, coach!" He can suggest some things for me, and I could finish up what I'm doing for grants, endowments, finance, etc., before taking a call. </blockquote><br><br>As I wrote at the time, the activity described here occurred after I had been the Academic Dean for the seminary of the TAALC (The American Association of Lutheran Churches), and immediately after we organized the Saint Timothy Society, the synodical RSO for which I have been the Chaplain since July of 2016. At the time (2007 and 2008) I was one of the directors. <br><br>District President Ritt preceded President Stechholz, which might explain why I confused the two in the email. </div><br><div id="en-p09"><!--footnote reference--><a href="#er-p09">[09]</a><!--footnote reference-->Quoted from your letter sent to me dated July 18, 2016 (.pdf version at this link: <a href="https://goo.gl/YXkgXh" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/YXkgXh</a>). One problem (among many) with your letter is that you knew I was taking a call as early as June 21, 2016 (.pdf version of email at this link: <a href="https://goo.gl/tfWoJs" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/tfWoJs</a>). I received the call on July 8, 2016. </div><br><div id="en-p10"><!--footnote reference--><a href="#er-p10">[10]</a>It's unfortunate that your delay in finishing the corrections has made this an issue, but I must ask: How did you manage to get the year wrong? Did it not occur to you that the email from your office dated May 18 of 2016 can only make sense if my membership ended in 2017, not 2016? Note the text from that email: <br><br><blockquote> In January of 2008, you were granted membership in the Synod as a Non­Candidate Member. Bylaw 2.11.2.3 (a) states that those individuals granted Candidate Status “may be continued on the roster for a period up to eight years by act of the president of the district through which the person holds membership.” The purpose of this letter is to inform you that your membership in the Synod, as a Non­Candidate Member, came to an end in January of 2016. </blockquote><br><br>The email makes sense if the correct years are applied, 2009 and 2017, instead of the erroneous years of 2008 and 2016. <br><br>On the positive side of the ledger, I must say that until you attempted to remove me from the clergy roster, I have had routinely positive experiences with you, the district staff, and the previous District Presidents going all the way back to Roger Pittelko. You saw me at our English District Midwest Pastors Conference at the Cenacle Retreat Center in Lincoln in October of 2015, which was yet another excellent conference which I very much enjoyed. <br><br>As late as October of 2015 you saw me in person and mentioned nothing remotely related to what you and your office would write and publish the following May, June and July. <br><br>See also the email your office sent to me on May 16, 2016 (available as a .pdf file at this link: <a href="https://goo.gl/CNqjor" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/CNqjor</a>). The timing and content of the email struck me as odd, and I wanted to make sure I had not missed an earlier letter, so I asked about it in my reply email on that same day, May 16, 2016 (at this link: <a href="https://goo.gl/EWJXPc" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/EWJXPc</a>). In the past, the English District has sent the application forms a year prior to the end of the term of membership: see footnote [06]. The reply I received on May 17, 2016 makes sense for an application for a term beginning in 2017, not 2016 (.pdf file at this link: <a href="https://goo.gl/39fj1J" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/39fj1J</a>). </div><br> <div id="en-p11"><!--footnote reference--><a href="#er-p11">[11]</a><!--footnote reference-->I pointed out the error in the years of my term of membership to you as early as August 23, 2016 by email. The .pdf version of my email to you is at this URL: <a href="https://goo.gl/EWy1og" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/EWy1og</a>. </div><br> <div id="en-p12"><!--footnote reference--><a href="#er-p12">[12]</a><!--footnote reference-->You can add all of the above to the other reasons to finish the corrections. Yes, it is true that you tried to remove after I had accepted a call, yes, it is true that you made the effort after the synod in convention made candidates for a ten year term all those currently candidates and non-candidates, and "nunc pro tun" would still apply. But those reasons - and more - are in addition to, and not in stead of, what is pointed out here. This is a simple, and necessary, correction of an error in the dates of my roster membership. It also avoids asking why you would remove someone from the clergy roster after you knew they had received, and would shortly accept, a call; why you would do this after the synod in convention on July 13 made all "candidates and non-candidates" candidates for a ten year period; and why you would remove someone for (ostensibly) failing to fill out an application for a roster category which no longer existed after July 13th of 2016. <br><br>Correcting the dates makes this simple: your office had the years wrong by one; you mistakenly removed me some five months before my term as a non-candidate would end, and a week after I had accepted a call to a Recognized Service Organization of the synod. I was a member of synod as a non-candidate from 2009 to 2017. In July of 2016 I accepted a call. The events after I accepted the call are interesting, but not really necessary. It did not matter if I became a candidate from July 13 of 2016 to July 13 of 2026. Non-candidates and candidates alike can, and do, accept calls and become active members. </div><br><div id="en-p13"><!--footnote reference--><a href="#er-p13">[13]</a><!--footnote reference-->It is apparent from the documents here in this blog post that I routinely fill out the forms, reports, and applications from the districts, synod and the Council of Presidents. I offered to complete the application for Inactive Status in June of 2016, and I suppose I could still do that. But how would the Council of Presidents act on the application some five months before my membership in synod would expire, a month after I had accepted a called position, and several weeks after the synod in convention eliminated "Inactive non-candidate" as a membership category? How could I be "non-compliant" for an application I offered to complete, for a membership category that had been eliminated? Is this even possible? </div><br><h2>Cited and Referenced Sources: </h2><i>[Numbered links] return to beginning of Endnotes section. <br>https links opens document in another window. </i><br><br><a href="#p-endnotes" id="cnv001">[001]</a>2008 January, Letter, from District President David Stechholz: <a href="https://goo.gl/77wdzn" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/77wdzn</a>. <br><br><a href="#p-endnotes" id="cnv002">[002]</a>February 25, 2008, Application for Inactive Status: <a href="https://goo.gl/Z8AKjy" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/Z8AKjy</a><br><br><a href="#p-endnotes" id="cnv003">[003]</a>March 3, 2008, Email, Gordon Bynum to President's Office, English District: <a href="https://goo.gl/HM7oFR" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/HM7oFR</a><br><br><a href="#p-endnotes" id="cnv004">[004]</a>May 16, 2016, Email, English District to Gordon Bynum: <a href="https://goo.gl/CNqjor" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/CNqjor</a><br><br><a href="#p-endnotes" id="cnv005">[005]</a>May 16, 2016, Email, Gordon Bynum to English District: <a href="https://goo.gl/EWJXPc" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/EWJXPc</a><br><br><a href="#p-endnotes" id="cnv006">[006]</a>May 17, 2016, Email, English District to Gordon Bynum: <a href="https://goo.gl/39fj1J" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/39fj1J</a><br><br><a href="#p-endnotes" id="cnv007">[007]</a>June 21, 2016, Email, Gordon Bynum to English District: <a href="https://goo.gl/tfWoJs" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/tfWoJs</a><br><br><a href="#p-endnotes" id="cnv008">[008]</a>June 23, 2016, Letter, (by Fedex) Gordon Bynum to Jamison Hardy: <a href="https://goo.gl/dAeMpv" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/dAeMpv</a><br><br><a href="#p-endnotes" id="cnv009">[009]</a>July 5, 2016, Letter, Dorothy Krans, Director of Recognized Service Organizaions, LC-MS: <a href="https://goo.gl/UxQrJJ" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/UxQrJJ</a><br><br><a href="#p-endnotes" id="cnv010">[010]</a>July 8, 2016, Call Letter, Chaplain, Saint Timothy Society to Gordon Bynum: <a href="https://goo.gl/fSRTkr" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/fSRTkr</a><br><br><a href="#p-endnotes" id="cnv011">[011]</a>July 18, 2016, Letter, Jamison Hardy to Gordon Bynum: <a href="https://goo.gl/YXkgXh" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/YXkgXh</a><br><br><a href="#p-endnotes" id="cnv012">[012]</a>July 18, 2016, Memo, Jamison Hardy to President Matthew Harrison, All District Presidents and Administrative Assistants: <a href="https://goo.gl/5d5k3h" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/5d5k3h</a><br><br><a href="#p-endnotes" id="cnv013">[013]</a>August 23, 2016, Email, Gordon Bynum to Jamison Hardy: <a href="https://goo.gl/EWy1og" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/EWy1og</a><br><br><a href="#p-endnotes" id="cnv014">[014]</a>August 23, 2016, Letter, Jamison Hardy to Eugene Weeke: <a href="https://goo.gl/jDAX39" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/jDAX39</a><br><br><a href="#p-endnotes" id="cnv015">[015]</a>August 24, 2016, Tranfer Form for Gordon Bynum, Jamison Hardy, English District, to Minnesota South District: <a href="https://goo.gl/1EK8bC" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/1EK8bC</a><br><br><a href="#p-endnotes" id="cnv016">[016]</a>March 17, 2017, Letter, Gordon Bynum to Jamison Hardy, : <a href="https://goo.gl/BA3ewb" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/BA3ewb</a><br><br><a href="#p-endnotes" id="cnv017">[017]</a>March 24, 2017, Corrected Memo, (Dated July 20, 2017) Jamison Hardy to President Matthew Harrison, All District Presidents and Administrative Assistants: <a href="https://goo.gl/brBzeD" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/brBzeD</a><br><br><a href="#p-endnotes" id="cnv018">[018]</a>May 17, 2017, Letter, Gordon Bynum to Jamison Hardy: <a href="https://goo.gl/i2wNEp" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/i2wNEp</a><br><br><a href="#p-endnotes" id="cnv019">[019]</a>May 17 - June 24, 2016, Correspondence between English District and Gordon Bynum: <a href="https://bit.ly/2IGTUQ8" target="_blank">https://bit.ly/2IGTUQ8</a> Administratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06152556530973824159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2104583025219276778.post-2296800166826076562017-05-18T14:50:00.000-07:002018-02-22T13:25:26.837-08:00Telling The Truth Would Be Much Easier; Fabricating Excuses Must Be Exhausting<i>Well, Dear Readers, as some of you have mentioned, it is a curious spectacle to see someone go to so much effort to avoid telling the truth in order to avoid correcting their mistakes. In this case, given the length of time the fabrications have gone unretracted, I'm not sure how it differs from outright lying. So perhaps the most charitable assumption might be that avoidable mistakes became correctable errors, and then the correctable errors were justified by fabrications. And now, as of this writing (a year and a half later in February of 2018), it is becoming difficult to believe that the first mistake was not a malicious lie from the beginning. <br><br>But let's hope this is not the case, and let's redouble our efforts in getting the truth out and correcting the record. Below is the letter (one of several) sent by my former district president in May of 2017 after he fabricated yet another excuse for his effort to remove my name from the clergy roster in July of 2016. Like the earlier excuses, this one was also demonstrably false, made up eight months after the fact, and had the added curiosity of having never been mentioned before. <a href="#fnd3" id="frd3" name="frd3">[d3]</a><br><br></i><p align="left">The Reverend Dr. Jamison J. Hardy, Bishop and President <br>The English District of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod <br>33100 Freedom Road <br>Farmington, Michigan 48336-4030 </p><br> <p align="right">2017 May 17 </p><br> <p align="left">Dear President Hardy, I think we need more clarity. Let's also start with greater simplicity. Again, I would like the record to reflect the reality, so I am asking you to send the following memo: <br><br></p> <blockquote> DATE: TO: ________________ Rev. Matthew Harrison, President <br>All District Presidents & Administrative Assistants <br>FROM: <br>Rev. Dr. Jamison J. Hardy, President, English District, LCMS <br>SUBJECT: Gordon Bynum – Ordained Minister <br><br>Please disregard the previous memos and announcements regarding the roster status of Rev. Gordon Bynum. At no time was he removed from the ordained roster of the synod. The memos, announcements and any other actions indicating otherwise are retracted, along with any references or suggestions made in them by citing synodical bylaws 2.13.2.1, 2.13.4, 2.11.2.3 (b) and “non-compliance”. Rev. Bynum accepted a call to a synodical RSO, the Saint Timothy Society, in July of 2016, and was transferred to the Minnesota South District in August of 2016. He was and remains eligible for consideration for a call. We regret having caused any misunderstanding or damage to his reputation this may have occasioned. </blockquote><br><br><p align="left">I ask that the following appear in the print edition of the Lutheran Reporter under the “Official Notices” section: </p><blockquote>GORDON BYNUM was and remains eligible to receive a call. At no time was he removed from the ordained roster of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. The earlier notices and announcements of his removal (in July and August of 2016) are, regrettably, in error. </blockquote><br><br><p align="left">I ask that the same appear in the online version of the official notices (https://blogs.lcms.org/category/lcms-notices). <br><br>I also ask that the notice found at https://blogs.lcms.org/2016/updates-from-lcms-districts-august-2016 be appended with the note “(THIS NOTICE IS IN ERROR AND HAS BEEN RETRACTED).” <br><br>I ask you to place the following in the relevant section of the 2018 English District Convention Workbook: </p><br><br> <blockquote>“The Rev. Gordon Bynum's status change from Candidate to Non-Candidate occurred on January 1, 2009, and not in 2008. We regret the error.” </blockquote><br><br><p align="left">When I mentioned the error in June of 2012, I was informed it was a trivial mistake, probably due to an administrative oversight, and it would not have any signifigance. It became signifigant when the erroroneous date became part of the attempt to remove me from the clergy roster. This needs to be corrected. <br><br>I ask that you include the following in the 2018 Engish District Convention Workbook under the category “TRANSFERS OUT - ORDAINED MINISTERS”: </p><blockquote>The Rev. Gordon Bynum August 24, 2016 Minnesota South District <br> Chaplain, Saint Timothy Society, Recognized Service Organization </blockquote><p align="left">Please refer to the correspondence and documentation I have sent since August of 2016 if you need further verification. I would appreciate your immediate attention to this matter given the length of time the memos and notices have gone uncorrected, and the ongoing confusion this has generated. <br><br>Sincerely, <br><br>Gordon Bynum </p><br><br>CC: <br>Rev. Dr. Dean Nadasdy, District President, The Minnesota South District LC – MS <br>Matthew Johnson, Circuit Counsellor, Northwest Metro, Minnesota South District <br>Directors, the Saint Timothy Society <br>Rev. Dr. John Sias, Synod Executive Secretary, LC - MS <br>Eugene Weeke, Director of Business Services, LC - MS <br><br><h2>Footnotes: </h2> <div><br /><!--footnote reference--><a href="#frd3" name="fnd3">[d3]</a><!--footnote reference-->A .pdf version of this letter and attachments are at this url: <a href="https://goo.gl/XadGQB" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/XadGQB</a><br /><br /></div> Administratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06152556530973824159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2104583025219276778.post-90647604351766429392017-03-18T13:51:00.000-07:002018-02-13T14:14:41.285-08:00You Appear To Be Struggling; Perhaps You Should Start With The Facts <i>Some of you <a href="#fnc9" id="frc9" name="frc9">[c9]</a>have expressed varying degrees of incredulity and amazement that I am still waiting for the retractions and corrections of the notices of my removal as a pastor from the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (or "LCMS"). <a href="#fnd0" id="frd0" name="frd0">[d0]</a>I too have expressed the same, given that I was not removed, and continue to this day as a pastor in the LCMS, <a href="#fne1" id="fre1" name="fre1">[e1]</a> and have been serving in my current position as the Chaplain of the Saint Timothy Society since July of 2016. <br><br>Below is just one of my many efforts to have the record corrected. This particular letter was sent in March of 2017, <a href="#fnf2" id="frf2" name="frf2">[f2]</a> some seven months after my removal had been expunged in August of 2016. As always, I am very grateful to all of you who have brought to my attention the demonstrably false information about me, the Saint Timothy Society, and the excellent people and churches who have helped and supported us over the years. As Mark Twain put it, <q>A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.</q> This particular set of lies has been left unretracted (as of this writing now in February of 2018) for a year and half, so it has quite the head start. Proverbs 12:19 has the antidote to Twain's insightful diagnosis of the human condition. </i> <br><br> <!--The lip of truth shall be established for ever: but a lying tongue is but for a moment.--> <p align="left">The Reverend Dr. Jamison J. Hardy, Bishop and President <br>The English District of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod <br>33100 Freedom Road <br>Farmington, Michigan 48336-4030 </p><br> <p align="right">2017 March 18 </p><br> <p align="left">Dear President Hardy, It has been over six months since we began the process of corrections to my roster status. I believe the following corrections can be relatively simple. My roster membership chronology is straightforward: <br><br>2001 Jan. 1 to 2009 Jan. 1: member of synod as a Candidate (8 years). <br>2009 Jan. 1 to 2017 Jan. 1: member of synod as either a Candidate or Non-Candidate (8 years). <br>2016 July 8: received call as Chaplain for the Saint Timothy Society (a new synodical RSO). <br>2016 July 13: member of synod as a Candidate (term of 10 years). <br>2016 Aug. 24: transferred from the English District to the Minnesota South District. <br><br> I would like to have the record reflect the reality. The following are some of the remaining items I am asking you to address. <br><br>1. Would you correct and retract your memo of July 18, 2016 to “Rev. Matthew Harrison, President” and “All District Presidents and Administrative Assistants” in the same manner, using the same venue, and to the same recipients? This correction would include: (a) I have not been removed from the Roster of Ordained Ministers of The Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod; (b) I was and continue to be eligible for a call; and (c) that the memo of July 18th is in error and retracted. It would also be important to include: (a) the use of bylaws 2.13.2.1 and 2.13.4 in the July 18 memo is mistaken; (b) I have never been “placed on restricted status” for being “incapable of performing the duties of the office or position because of physical, mental, or emotional disability”; nor (c) have “formal proceedings have been commenced” (against me) “which may lead to expulsion from the Synod” recently or any other time. These are quotes from bylaws 2.13.2.1 and 2.13.4. <br><br>My assumption is that the use of these bylaws (along with “non-compliance”) in your memo of July18th is a mistake. In your letter to Mr. Weeke dated August 23rd you do not mention these but bylaw 2.11.2.3 instead. Your stated reason for your July 18 effort to remove me was that I had not applied for continuation as a Non-Candidate. But as mistakes go, this one is very damaging, so a more fullsome and accurate correction would be appreciated. <br><br>2. Would you clarify the sentence “Please bestow Gordon Bynum his candidate status to the Roster of Ordained Ministers of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod effective August 23, 2016” from your letter dated August 23, 2016 to Mr. Eugene Weeke? Perhaps Mr. Weeke can do this, but it is more likely that he can record and note that only one change occurred in my roster category in July (to Candidate on July 13th), and that I have not been removed as an ordained member of the LC – MS. There is no “gap” period when I was not an ordained member of synod between July 13, 2016 and August 23, 2016. On July 13, 2016 the synod in convention changed my roster status to Candidate for a period of 10 years, deleted the category of Non-Candidate, and deleted bylaw 2.11.2.3 which created and governed Non-Candidate status. That action prevails, prevents and replaces the later action of July 18th because the action of July 18th applied to a roster category (Non-Candidate) which no longer existed on the basis of bylaws which also no longer existed (2.11.2.3). I was and continue as a member of synod, and I was an ordained member of the LC – MS as a Candidate during that period. <br><br>3. Will you correct and retract the official public notices in the Lutheran Reporter of 2016 August and on the synod's website using the same venue and in the same manner, both in print and digital formats? This would include that I was and continue to be on the ordained roster of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod; I have been and continue to be eligible for a call; and that the 2016 August official notices in the print edition of the Lutheran Reporter and the electronic version of the synod's website stating otherwise are in error and retracted. <br><br>4. Will you correct the record regarding the dates of my membership roster categories and inform the relevant districts (including Minnesota South and English) and departments of synod using the chronology in the first paragraph above? I am sympathetic to the fact that you were probably not the District President when these dates became confused, but it would be very helpful to have this corrected. Whatever my clergy roster categories were (Candidate or Non-Candidate), one of their terms had to be from 2001 to 2009 followed by another from 2009 to 2017. The enclosed letter from the English District dated January 2008 verifies that I was a Candidate from 2001 to 2009. <br><br>If any confusion remains that my following term on the clergy roster (as either Non-Candidate or Candidate) began in 2009, let me know and I will dig deeper into storage and send you more documentation. Given what I have sent you already since May of 2016, it may be overkill. I'm happy to send it all again, and I can try to locate and send to you other documentation you might find helpful. Please let me know what you decide; if you determine you are able to do the items above, I would appreciate copies for my records. <br><br>Sincerely, <br><br> Gordon Bynum <br><br>CC: <br><br>Rev. Dr. Dean Nadasdy, District President, The Minnesota South District LC – MS <br>Matthew Johnson, Circuit Counsellor, Northwest Metro, Minnesota South District <br>Directors, the Saint Timothy Society <br>Rev. Dr. John Sias, Synod Executive Secretary, LC - MS <br>Eugene Weeke, Director of Business Services, LC - MS <br><br>Enclosures: 3 <br><br>January 2008 Letter, David Stechholz to Gordon Bynum July 18, 2016 Memo, Jamison Hardy to Praesidium and all Administrative Assistants 2016 August Official Notices <br><br><h2>Footnotes: </h2> <div><br /><!--footnote reference--><a href="#frc9" name="fnc9">[c9]</a><!--footnote reference-->"Some" here also includes a surprising number of clergy and members of the LCMS, friends and visitors to this humble web site, "Well-Wishers", and the the other usual suspects from University Luther Chapel, The Saint Timothy Society, and 2Realms.com. <br /><br /></div> <div><br /><!--footnote reference--><a href="#frd0" name="fnd0">[d0]</a><!--footnote reference-->Unfortunately, abbreviations and acronyms abound. This one is hopefully clear enough. <br /><br /></div> <div><br /><!--footnote reference--><a href="#fre1" name="fne1">[e1]</a><!--footnote reference-->I accepted the call as Chaplain in the second week of July, a few days after receiving it. As of 2018 February my former district president has still not corrected the announcements and memos. <br /><br /></div> <div><br /><!--footnote reference--><a href="#frf2" name="fnf2">[f2]</a><!--footnote reference-->A .pdf version of that letter and attachments are at this url: <a href="https://goo.gl/35irHw" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/35irHw</a>https://goo.gl/35irHw <br /><br /></div>Administratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06152556530973824159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2104583025219276778.post-82090761185105337652016-07-14T19:45:00.000-07:002017-05-04T20:08:19.158-07:00The Saint Timothy Society is Now a Recognised Service Organisation (RSO) of the Lutheran Church - Missouri SynodSometime back in 2007 the Evanglical Lutheran Church of Kenya (ELCK) invited Rev. Tom Aadland to teach at their seminary in Matongo, Kenya following his last term as Presiding Pastor of the American Association of Lutheran Churches. &nbsp;At the end of that year the Saint Timothy Society for Lutheran Seminary Scholarship was chartered and incorporated to support that work and become a 501c3 organisation in 2008 (for our readers outside the United States, that's one of those pesky codes for non-profits and charities that allow donors to deduct their contributions when paying their income tax; for our readers inside the United States, you have our empathy for having to deal with the current tax code). &nbsp;We've chugged along for the past nine years doing a lot more than we thought we could largely due to Tom Aadland's excellent success in raising money. &nbsp;This is often the way of Churches and Church societies; we fail to understand that we can't do what we intend to do, and due to that lack of understanding we manage to do those things anyway.<br /><br />At some point the Saint Timothy Society decided to apply for what is known as "RSO status", that is, to become a Recognised Service Organisation (RSO) within the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LC-MS). &nbsp;This came to completion in July of 2016: RSO recognition was given by the LC-MS, the signatures on the agreement were completed by the beginning of August of 2016, and the Saint Timothy Society now <a href="https://blogs.lcms.org/2016/rso-update-oct-2016" target="_blank">appears</a> on the LCMS.org website (and in the <a href="http://www.lcms.org/rso/directory" target="_blank">RSO directory</a>).<br /><br />Your humble writer (blogger? that's a word now, eh?) has gained even greater humility (and proud of it!) by being called as the Chaplain for the Saint Timothy Society, which I accepted on July 14, 2016. &nbsp;So the sporadic postings here will become somewhat less sporadic and will include more information about the Saint Timothy Society, in addition to University Lutheran Chapel in Minneapolis. &nbsp;And in the next week I hope to have comments and contact info working on this blog.Administratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06152556530973824159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2104583025219276778.post-66430936853479719882016-07-06T21:36:00.000-07:002017-06-01T17:08:49.700-07:00The Saint Timothy Society Has Been Accepted as a Recogized Service Organization (RSO) of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS)<i>On July 5th the Saint Timothy Society was offered Recognized Service Organization Status by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Details to follow. </i><br /><br /><div>For those who are fond of acronyms, that means the Saint Timothy Society has been accepted as an RSO (Recognized Service Organization) of the LCMS (The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod). For the rest of us, it means that the Saint Tim Society will continue its efforts to help support Lutheran Seminary scholarship and education overseas, most notably as part of the work Tom Aadland does at the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Kenya's seminary in Matongo, Kenya. As of this date, we're still waiting to hear in which District of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod the Saint Timothy Society will reside. This writer is a member of the clergy roster of the LCMS as a member of the English District, and we're waiting to hear back from them if they would like to be the home of the Saint Timothy Society. </div><br /><br /><div> </div>Administratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06152556530973824159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2104583025219276778.post-54948117113116199262013-07-20T16:38:00.002-07:002013-07-20T16:56:09.057-07:00Convention Materials on Google Docs; Readable in Browser or DownloadWe here at Friends of University Lutheran Chapel Minneapolis have devoted much of this blog to making available to the public the documentation related to University Lutheran Chapel and the chapel's effort to bring the sale of the campus ministry property to a vote by the Minnesota South District Convention. &nbsp;Along the way, we discovered that Google Drive (formerly Docs) and Google Picassa Web can be very useful in displaying documents either "in-line" or in a new browser window. <div><br /></div><div>So why not do the same for the 2013 Convention Materials for the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod meeting this week in Saint Louis? &nbsp;The "LCMS" (as it is abbreviated) already does an excellent job in making available its convention materials on its own website at&nbsp;<a href="http://www.lcms.org/convention/downloads" target="_blank">http://www.lcms.org/convention/downloads</a>&nbsp;and at&nbsp;<a href="http://www.lcms.org/convention" target="_blank">http://www.lcms.org/convention</a>. &nbsp;Why not make some of these available as readable in the browser? The documents are already publicly available, so unless we're asked to remove them, we'll put the links in this post.</div><div><br /></div><div>As usual, there are many, many caveats, disclaimers, and various other dire warnings, consequences and cautionary tales that go with the the use of the blog and whatever you find here. &nbsp;See our Acceptable Use Notice (the link is displayed on the right) and read the "fine print" at the bottom of this post. </div><br /> <div>This may take a long time to load, depending on your bandwidth, connection speed, and the overall load on google apps servers, but feel free to try to view the <!-- 2013 Convention Workbook in new window https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2ywU0fUxfdQVUdyUG8wdzV0WEU/edit?usp=sharing --> <br /><form style="display: inline;"><input onclick="window.open('https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2ywU0fUxfdQVUdyUG8wdzV0WEU/edit?usp=sharing')" type="button" value="2013 Convention Workbook in a new window." /></form> If that doesn't work, you can try to <!-- 2013 Convention Workbook Download --> <br /><form style="display: inline;"><input onclick="window.location.href='https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQVUdyUG8wdzV0WEU'" type="button" value="download the 2013 Convention Workbook as a .pdf file." /></form> <br /></div><br /><div> The First Issue of Today's Business is a smaller file, and you might have more luck viewing <!-- Today's Business First Issue in new window https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2ywU0fUxfdQSTVlYzJHb3JpRzA/edit?usp=sharing --> <br /><form style="display: inline;"><input onclick="window.open('https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2ywU0fUxfdQSTVlYzJHb3JpRzA/edit?usp=sharing')" type="button" value="Today's Business First Issue in a new window." /></form> Or you can try to <!-- Today's Business First Issue Download --> <br /><form style="display: inline;"><input onclick="window.location.href='https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQSTVlYzJHb3JpRzA'" type="button" value="download Today's Business First Issue as a .pdf file." /></form><br /></div><br /><div>And now the "fine print". The versions of these documents here may be incorrect, inaccurate, out of date and suffer from various other defects. Refer to the official website of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (URL's given above) or to the convention officers for complete and accurate versions and other documentation. The server host provider(s) for this blog also have limitations and restrictions, including limited bandwidth and availability depending on your location and connection speed. <br /></div><br /><div>Which means that at some point the downloads and views may (and probably will) exceed the quota for this account on Google Apps for Business, and the links will no longer work, the page may not load, etc. Until then, we hope this is of some use. <br /></div>Administratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06152556530973824159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2104583025219276778.post-5584039625094008672013-07-13T13:58:00.002-07:002013-07-13T21:20:16.235-07:00No Secrecy or Non Disclosure Here - The Settlement Between ULC and the DistrictThe Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS) meets in convention on July 20th. &nbsp;Here at Friends of ULC we have been trying to help those involved by sharing the relevant documents concerning University Lutheran Chapel and its struggle to have the Minnesota South District Convention vote on the sale of the campus ministry property in Minneapolis. &nbsp;In our last post we dissected one erroneous reason why the LCMS should not vote on convention workbook memorial 1-15, and urged that this memorial go to the delegates for a vote.<div><br /></div><div>In this post we dissect yet another erroneous reason why the LCMS in convention cannot &nbsp;- or should not - vote on memorial 1-15, "To Commend and Support Campus Ministry at University of Minnesota". &nbsp;That would be that the legal settlement between University Lutheran Chapel and the Minnesota South District involves some sort of secrecy or non-disclosure. &nbsp;We don't know if that reason has been suggested to the floor committee or others at the upcoming convention. &nbsp;We hope not, but we have heard and seen this speculation elsewhere, and it would not be surprising if this were offered as an excuse to decline to consider the memorial.</div><div><br /></div><div>In the same way that some have made demonstrably false oaths, affidavits, and sworn statements exposed elsewhere on this blog, this line of argument could prove ultimately very embarrassing to the arguer. &nbsp;The first question to them should be, can you produce the text of the settlement and show us where it supports what you say? &nbsp;Even if the text of the settlement were not available, it would be a shame to make this case to any deliberative body or convention. &nbsp;They would want the delegates to decline to consider a memorial based on a settlement whose terms we cannot know, whose text we cannot see, and hidden from us by a non-disclosure or secrecy clause we cannot examine.</div><div><br /></div><div>But the text of the settlement is available, just like almost every other document from the legal action. &nbsp;It was part of the order dismissing the eviction and litigation. &nbsp;And there is nothing in the settlement to prevent the synod, or any district, from acting on this memorial, or, for that matter, just about anything else they would like to address regarding the Minnesota South District or University Lutheran Chapel. &nbsp;The only limitation the settlement mentions is that University Lutheran Chapel and the Minnesota South District will no longer litigate against each other on the specific grounds of the legal actions dismissed by the settlement. &nbsp;The synod in convention can do a vast number of things (especially so in convention) just like the Minnesota South District Convention was correct in wanting to vote on the sale, but was prevented from doing so by their former district president. <br /></div> <div><br />But don't take my word for it. Read the text of the settlement agreement <!-- Settlement Agreement in new window https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2ywU0fUxfdQTzVoTXlBWWJVaVE/edit?usp=sharing --> <form style="display: inline;"><input onclick="window.open('https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2ywU0fUxfdQTzVoTXlBWWJVaVE/edit?usp=sharing')" type="button" value="here in a new window"></form> or <!-- Settlement Agreement Download --> <form style="display: inline;"><input onclick="window.location.href='https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQTzVoTXlBWWJVaVE'" type="button" value="download it as a .pdf file" /></form>. <br /></div><br /><div>If you find the legalese too dense, get a lawyer to explain it to you (as I've said earlier, unlike many other pastors, I know I'm not a lawyer). Some individual names and the signature and exhibit pages (giving the legal description of the property) are redacted in this digital copy (including the last 10 pages of the 23 page document), but anyone interested can ask the Minnesota South District for a full copy. If for some reason they wont give it to you (it should already be available to all their pastors and congregations as members of their corporation), ask if University Lutheran Chapel will give you a copy. Or get a copy from the 4th district court records office (that's my favorite method; it's a charming trip to the downtown Minneapolis courthouse, and the records office is part of the scenic underground parking ramp!). <br /></div><br /><div>Why not just let the delegates vote on the original workbook memorial 1-15? Conventions and floor committees have a lot of work to do. Spurious reasons for not allowing the delegates to vote on memorials are a distraction, and waste everyone's time. Conventions and floor committees have more than enough to do without having to sift through speculative theories which are not established by the documentary evidence. <br /></div>Administratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06152556530973824159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2104583025219276778.post-77385086412359185552013-06-29T13:12:00.003-07:002013-06-30T14:22:36.675-07:00Another Convention, Another Chance to Vote on ULC? Let's Make that Happen.Visitors to our humble little blog are probably aware that we've been doing what we can for some years to help University Lutheran Chapel (ULC) and get the word out about the sale of the campus ministry property by the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. &nbsp;We don't claim any credit for any of the good things that have happened so far, but we're glad to play&nbsp;<a href="http://www.2realms.com/Members/gwb/so-where-are-the-newer-items-try-http-blog-friendsofulc.org/" target="_blank">some small part.</a><br /><br />It appears as if we have another chance to do some good, or, more accurately, all of you have a chance to do some good before and during (and after, if you like!) the upcoming convention of the The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod July 20 - 25 in Saint Louis. &nbsp;The good news is that there is an excellent memorial in the Convention Workbook on page 139 "To Commend and Support Campus Ministry at University of Minnesota": <!-- .png file of Workbook Memorial 1-15 on page 139 --> <br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MT4h8xja0AQ/Uc85ifWraXI/AAAAAAAAARE/n1aKikKXmak/s515/Memorial_1-15-Title.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MT4h8xja0AQ/Uc85ifWraXI/AAAAAAAAARE/n1aKikKXmak/s515/Memorial_1-15-Title.png" height="232" width="400" /></a></div><span id="goog_1544436142"></span><span id="goog_1544436143"></span> <!-- Workbook Memorial 1-15 in new window --> <br /><form style="display: inline;"><input onclick="window.open('https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2ywU0fUxfdQekhvYUlxZXk2YTA/edit?usp=sharing')" type="button" value="See Full Text in New Window"></form> <!-- Workbook Memorial 1-15 Download --> <form style="display: inline;"><input onclick="window.location.href='https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQekhvYUlxZXk2YTA'" type="button" value="Download Full Text as .pdf File" /></form> <br /> <br />So the convention will get to vote on this, right?<br /><br />Well, maybe, maybe not. &nbsp;This gets a little arcane, but the process goes something like this. &nbsp;Memorials to a synodical convention are sent to one of several floor committees. &nbsp;In this case, that is floor committee #1 (also called "Witness"; I won't try to explain this beyond saying the names are apparently an attempt to designate the general topic area of the committee). &nbsp;So floor committee #1 should do their thing, and decide what to do with the memorial.<br /><br />The process might involve taking a memorial, then fashioning it into an overture, which then may or may not become a resolution (more details later will be added to this very rough description). &nbsp;Floor Committee #1, however, has decided to ask the convention to&nbsp;decline to consider this memorial in the First Issue of Today's Business:<br /><br /><!-- In line display .png Today's Business Resolution 1-17 --> <br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-brdzQk7BlYc/Uc8z9Lk4OAI/AAAAAAAAAQU/7A32jJC8E9A/s1047/Resolution1-17Decline.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-brdzQk7BlYc/Uc8z9Lk4OAI/AAAAAAAAAQU/7A32jJC8E9A/s1047/Resolution1-17Decline.png" height="165" width="400" /></a></div><br /> <!-- Today's Business First Issue Resolution 1-17 display in new window --> <form style="display: inline;"><input onclick="window.open('https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2ywU0fUxfdQSlh6M2hZa0V4QVE/edit?usp=sharing')" type="button" value="See Full Text in New Window"></form> <!-- Today's Business First Issue Resolution 1-17 download --> <form style="display: inline;"><input onclick="window.location.href='https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQSlh6M2hZa0V4QVE'" type="button" value="Download Full Text as .pdf File" /></form> <br /><br />The reason given for their action is "Issue has already been resolved by Minnesota South Distr", which apparently means the Minnesota South District. &nbsp;But this is precisely what did not happen. &nbsp;From 2008 to the present, the district president, directors and officers of the Minnesota South District refused to let their district "resolve" in any way the question of the sale of the campus ministry property in Minneapolis, or Mankato. &nbsp;In fact, the district president refused to let his own convention vote on the matter by ruling a motion to do exactly that out of order. &nbsp;And to make matters worse, the officers and directors of the Minnesota South District continue to refuse to discuss the sale, or to respond to the process in the LCMS Handbook which specifies how to "resolve" disputed issues (dispute resolution).<br /><br />More posts will follow, but please consider contacting Floor Committee #1 to have them send the original memorial 1-15 to the convention delegates to have them vote on it. &nbsp;If you do, make sure you are courteous, polite, respectful and follow the words of Scripture, "Speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15). From what I can tell, the floor committee is open to more information, and is willing to correct whatever incorrect data it has been given to date. If it helps, you can <!-- Letter to Floor Committee #1 2013 June 17 in new window --> <form style="display: inline;"><input onclick="window.open('https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2ywU0fUxfdQYVQ5N2pNVkY1UVU/edit?usp=sharing')" type="button" value="read the letter"></form> I sent to Floor Committee #1 on 2013 June 17 or <!-- Letter to Floor Committee #1 2013 June 17 download .pdf --> <form style="display: inline;"><input onclick="window.location.href='https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQYVQ5N2pNVkY1UVU'" type="button" value="download" /></form>it as a .pdf file. If you are interested in the supporting documentation, you can see the other entries on this blog, or you can see the dispute resolution letter from <!-- Dispute Resolution Letter from 2013 February 28 in new window --> <form style="display: inline;"><input onclick="window.open('https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2ywU0fUxfdQX0FWN2kzUk8yZzQ/edit?usp=sharing')" type="button" value="2013 February 28"></form> or <!-- Dispute Resolution Letter from 2013 February 28 Download --> <form style="display: inline;"><input onclick="window.location.href='https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQX0FWN2kzUk8yZzQ'" type="button" value="download" /></form>the .pdf File. The dispute resolution letter from <!-- Dispute Resolution Letter from 2012 March 6 in new window --> <form style="display: inline;"><input onclick="window.open('https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2ywU0fUxfdQa2hGd0Z2SUhXZnc/edit?usp=sharing')" type="button" value="2012 March 6"></form> is online here, and is also available for <!-- Dispute Resolution Letter from 2012 March 6 download --> <form style="display: inline;"><input onclick="window.location.href='https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQa2hGd0Z2SUhXZnc'" type="button" value="download." /></form><!-- <a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2ywU0fUxfdQa2hGd0Z2SUhXZnc/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">(.pdf, new window)</a>. -->Administratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06152556530973824159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2104583025219276778.post-16455815952243502892013-05-13T13:09:00.002-07:002013-05-13T13:09:38.326-07:00Same Sex Marriage as "No Tolerance Policy" to Charities (Religious or Otherwise)Previous posts have outlined the very bad effects of the same sex marriage legislation being considered by the Minnesota Senate today. &nbsp;Those posts have already pointed out that the "fig leaves" lightly pasted on the legislation - the religious exemption and the use of the term "civil marriage" - will not fix the basic problems with same sex marriage. &nbsp;Yet another proof of this is the history of same sex marriage in other states. &nbsp;A striking example is Catholic Charities of Boston, an organization which no one would describe as "conservative", and which for 100 years or more included placing children for adoption as part of its charitable work.<br /><br />So how did same sex marriage affect this charity, which has never performed marriages? &nbsp;The effect was simple and devastating: it shut them down as an adoption agency. &nbsp;In 2005 the Roman Catholic Church insisted that Catholic Charities of Boston cease placing children for adoption with same sex couples (which it had done for 15 years) and follow the church's moral and religious teachings. &nbsp;Catholic Charities of Boston (itself a rather liberal social service agency) was caught between its church and its state. &nbsp; They asked the State of Massachusetts for permission to continue their work from the state in a way that did not violate their beliefs. &nbsp;The answer was "no". &nbsp;So Catholic Charities of Boston ceased the "pre-adoption" work of their agency.<br /><br />This example is instructive because it shows the effect of same sex marriage legislation on a religious organization which no one would consider conservative. &nbsp;In fact, the (now former) director of Catholic Charities of Boston resigned for the stated reason that the Vatican's directive contradicted their single adoption criteria, the "best interest of the children". &nbsp;The former director, Mr. Meade, is of course entitled to his opinion, but one obvious point would be that Christianity, Western Civilization, and the vast majority of religions around the world do not and have not considered homosexuality and same sex marriage in the "best interest of the children". &nbsp;This is one reason why, today, liberals, leftists and radicals are consistently mocked when they claim that their program should be carried out "for the children".<br /><br />So how would a religious exemption clause from performing same sex marriage in the Minnesota legislation protect similar charities in that state which do not perform marriages? &nbsp;The answer would be that it cannot, which would leave the more liberal agencies (many of whose names have a Christian denomination in front of "Social Services") caught between their church and their state. &nbsp;But for those charities and social service organizations that take the teaching of their church seriously (or are forced to do so by their sponsoring religious group), the consequences would be much more dire. &nbsp;Same sex marriage law combined with other laws &nbsp;(like fair housing accommodation) would allow those who are intolerant of traditional morality to persecute them and put them out of business. &nbsp;This would include the litigious, the intolerant, and those who sympathize with them in various state, county and local agencies.<br /><br />The experience with same sex marriage in other states shows us that it will not be just churches and their affiliates in the crosshairs. &nbsp;And charities which are not affiliated with any church or religion may fare much worse. &nbsp;The attacks on the Boy Scouts have already shown us what happens to those groups that are not religious and insist on a simple traditional moral code that includes a belief in God and the rejection of homosexuality.<br /><br />If this legislation becomes law, expect the same here.Administratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06152556530973824159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2104583025219276778.post-35952713391309308552013-05-12T23:10:00.002-07:002013-05-12T23:10:31.050-07:00Why "Religious" Exemptions from "Civil" Same Sex Marriage Won't HelpThe same sex marriage legislation that the Minnesota House has sent to the Senate was passed after adding two elements: a religious "exemption" from performing same sex marriages, and the addition of the term "civil", as in "Civil Marriage", apparently between two individuals of the same sex.<br /><br />We already know that in states which already have same sex marriage (usually by judicial fiat, and in some cases by legislature) the first organizations that find themselves under attack by state regulators and plaintiffs lawyers are churches and church organizations. &nbsp;Catholic Charities of Boston after 100 years of placing children in homes for adoption was forced to close its doors after same sex marriage was allowed in Massachusetts. &nbsp;Because of the moral position of their church which objected to homosexuality (and therefore same sex marriage) Catholic Charities asked for a narrow exemption from placing children with same sex couples. &nbsp;The state's response was a resounding "no". &nbsp;The same thing is happening now in Illinois, which has passed legislation allowing adoption by same sex couples.<br /><br />Ocean City, New Jersey, a unique association and city affiliated with the Methodist Church refused a request from a lesbian couple to be married on their property. &nbsp;To do so would violate Methodist Church law. &nbsp;The lesbian couple litigated using New Jersey's same sex marriage law combined with the legal theory of public accommodation, and succeeded in having the tax exemption of the religious association that owned Ocean City revoked. &nbsp;Owners of private businesses, such as the devote Roman Catholic proprietors of the Montpelier Inn in Vermont, were charged with violating Vermont's Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act. &nbsp;Of special interest in this instance is that the owners of the inn did not refuse a lesbian couple's request to host a civil union reception. &nbsp;Their "crime" was to express their religious conviction about same sex marriage in suggesting they might not be the best venue for the event.<br /><br />Even in states which reject same sex marriage moral and religious objectors to the idea are subjected to persecution by proponents of the idea. &nbsp;After the passage of California's famous proposition 8, which enshrined traditional marriage in their constitution, Mormons were targeted by the proponents of gay marriage in retaliation for their support of the measure, along with other churches, pastors, and moral and religious individuals and organizations. &nbsp;In the last days of the campaign, same sex marriage supporters paid for a series of television ads accusing Mormons of having "too much wealth" which they used to "overly influence" the government. &nbsp;The parallels to anti-semitic propaganda used by neo-nazi and white supremacist groups is striking, and its use against a particular religious group should be a warning.<br /><br />Should this legislation become law in Minnesota, the same will happen here, even with the "religious exemption" and "civil marriage" clauses. &nbsp;Religious organizations, such as adoption agencies, will find themselves persecuted when they follow their moral and religious precepts. &nbsp;Public school teachers and other government employees will face discipline or dismissal for holding to their moral or religious convictions about marriage. &nbsp;And an exemption based on religious conviction should terrify all individuals and citizens who hold moral convictions based on natural law, reason, history or common sense about marriage. &nbsp;Why would a religious association be necessary for exemption? &nbsp;Why is the moral objection of the individual citizen not enough? &nbsp;But they will have no exemption.<br /><br />Please urge the Minnesota Senate to vote down this legislation. &nbsp;See the previous post for their contact information.<br /><br /><br />Administratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06152556530973824159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2104583025219276778.post-39689665247301325432013-05-12T21:52:00.001-07:002013-05-12T21:53:47.982-07:00Let the Minnesota Senate Know What You Think About The Same Sex Marriage Legislation.The Minnesota State Senate is scheduled to consider the same sex marriage legislation passed by the Minnesota House last week. &nbsp;I have already written to as many state senators as I could to express my opposition to this legislation, and I would encourage you all to do the same. &nbsp;The contact information for the Senate is here:<br /><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://www.senate.mn/members/" target="_blank">http://www.senate.mn/members/</a></div><div><br /></div><div>If you would like to use an email merge program, here is a .csv file with each senator's email address derived from concatenating their contact information:</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2ywU0fUxfdQemFYck9ubUxkbWc/edit?usp=sharing">Minnesota Senators, with Email, Comma Separated File (.csv)</a></div><div><br /></div><div>That .csv file is crude, but the email address works for all but about 10 senators. &nbsp;The first link above also includes an ascii text file under the "labels" tab.</div><div><br /></div><div>Below is the text of the email I sent. &nbsp;I encourage you to write your own, but if this inspires you, feel free to use what you can. &nbsp;Make sure you are civil, polite, decent, courteous and respectful. &nbsp;Short and to the point is also good, and a simple sentence or two expressing your hope that they will vote against this legislation would be just fine.</div><div><br /></div><blockquote class="tr_bq">Subject:&nbsp;<span class="hP" id=":298" style="font-weight: normal;" tabindex="-1"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">Please consider voting no on same sex marriage legislatio<wbr></wbr>n. HF 1054, SF 925, revisions do not correct problems.</span></span></blockquote><blockquote>Dear <span class="il">Senator</span>&nbsp;____,<br /><br />It is my understanding that the <span class="il">Senate</span> will soon consider the same sex marriage legislation recently passed by the House. &nbsp;Having spent some amount of time reading and looking into HF 1054, SF 925, and the proposed revisions, amendments and impact of the legislation the <span class="il">Senate</span> may produce, I would like you to consider voting against the version of this bill that reaches your chamber. &nbsp;You may be mistaken in believing that the narrow failure of the marriage amendment last November indicates support for such legislation, and even a majority of support by Minnesotans. &nbsp;I would ask you to consider this: if next election sees a proposed constitutional amendment enshrining same sex marriage as constitutional, would it in fact pass? &nbsp;Or would it fail by an even greater percentage than its opposite in the last election?</blockquote><br /><blockquote>I also believe I understand the good intentions of those who have amended the legislation by inserting language and categories such as "civil" marriage and "Exemptions based on Religious Association". &nbsp;Unfortunately, these efforts do not make the bill acceptable. &nbsp;Because it proposes something that is unprecedented and opposed by so many Minnesotans and Americans, the need for such an exemption is troubling. &nbsp;Will the vast number of Minnesotans who consider same sex marriage wrong, unnatural, and destructive of family, society, state and country need to ask the state's permission under this law to continue their opposition? &nbsp;Would it make any difference if this opposition were not religious in nature, much less Christian? &nbsp;The use of the word "civil", while also well meant, does not seem to sufficiently clarify or lessen the enormous confusion, uncertainty and indecision this legislation will unleash.</blockquote><br /><blockquote>The arguments I have heard for this legislation appear to be largely emotional, and based on an individual's supposed "right" to "love whomever they want". &nbsp;If that argument is valid as the supporters of this legislation seem to believe, then I suppose we could change "whoever" to "whatever", of any age, condition, or species, singular or plural. &nbsp;If you pass this, you will owe polygamists (including some Mormons, Muslims, and others) an apology for decades and centuries of criminalizing their love. &nbsp;Many of us love our money, and would like to be married to it, but our governor and your chamber now consider denying us the right to keep all - or at least more - of what we love. &nbsp;If you detect some (little) humor in that, you are right, but the point is that emotion and a supposed claim to an invented right of some kind is a terrible basis for legislation. &nbsp;It's also destructive of a genuinely ordered civil society where morality and reason can consider what is right and wrong as well as the consideration of good and evil, virtue and vice.</blockquote><br /><blockquote>I appreciate your time. &nbsp;Should you, or your staff, wish to contact me, feel free to do so using the information on this email.</blockquote>Administratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06152556530973824159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2104583025219276778.post-1654123875146460012012-06-24T13:53:00.002-07:002012-06-24T14:17:44.631-07:00How Very Nice of You; Thank You, and God Bless!The convention of the Minnesota South District of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod ended last week, and we're delighted to report that there was some good news. &nbsp;Earlier posts have outlined the many, many errors that needed correction and action by the convention. &nbsp;Efforts from the floor to address these were, as expected, largely blocked. &nbsp;So the convention did their own version of "rough justice", and instead directed that 2.4 million from the sale of the campus ministry properties be given to University Lutheran Chapel (ULC) and Hosanna Lutheran Church, Mankato. &nbsp;ULC will receive 2 million, and Hosanna will have their $900,000 purchase price for the campus property in Mankato reduced by $400,000.<br /><br />So thank you to all of the pastors and congregations of the Minnesota South District, and God Bless you. &nbsp;You did a wonderful thing, and our hope is that one day soon you as a convention will get to make decisions like these. &nbsp;You also sent a marvelous message to your officers and directors: be clear, open, accountable, and not too hasty about what you're doing - especially to our governing documents, bylaws and articles - and ask us for our approval. &nbsp;We have high hopes for your new district president and directors, and we expect that they will make a much greater effort to treat you like the deliberative body you are.<br /><br />We will keep our readers posted here on developments and details of the convention resolution. &nbsp;The details have yet to be worked out, but at the moment the Minnesota South District is continuing their eviction of University Lutheran Chapel from the campus ministry property in Minneapolis. &nbsp;So the legal actions have not stopped, and ULC will likely be out of the property shortly, in a day or two. &nbsp;The convention had expressed their hope that the legal actions might stop, and it is certainly expensive for both the district and ULC to pay more in legal fees. &nbsp;We hope that the details of the 2.4 million transfer to ULC and Hosanna, Mankato can be worked out quickly, and that the district's officers and directors carry out the convention resolution without any unnecessary delay.<br /><br />It's been an unfortunate and expensive proposition for the district. &nbsp;They're selling a 4 million dollar property for 3.25 million after signing a purchase agreement for 3.5 million. &nbsp;They may also have to pay closing costs due to the purchase agreement they signed, and we're not sure if the Mankato campus ministry could be sold for more. &nbsp;So out of a possible 5 million dollars from the sale of both campus ministries they will get to keep around 1.75 million, and that's before deducting their other expenses.<br /><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br /><span style="background-color: white;">Haste makes waste. &nbsp;It was a mistake to try to rush through the sale before the convention could meet and weigh in on what the directors did. &nbsp;Maybe the next convention should divide their remaining 1.75 million between ULC and Hosanna, Mankato.</span>Administratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06152556530973824159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2104583025219276778.post-33187838500062150772012-06-14T23:44:00.001-07:002012-06-14T23:44:05.157-07:00Here's One Memorial to Correct Past MistakesWe've been asked if there is some way for the convention to fix what has happened to the Minnesota South District's governing documents. &nbsp;Quite frankly, we don't see how one convention can do this. &nbsp;But we do think the next two or three conventions could do this given enough time, information, and study.<br /><br />We also think that the only way to resolve the attempted sale of&nbsp;University Lutheran Chapel at the 2012 convention meeting now would be for the convention to answer two questions:<br /><br />1. Does the convention approve of what the directors have done in attempting to sell University Lutheran Chapel?<br /><br />2. Does the convention wish to make that decision itself?<br /><br />All the other memorials and resolutions concerning campus ministry are pointless and deceptive without the convention answering those two questions.<br /><br />The following memorial is an attempt to do all of the above, and do it in an informed and deliberate way. &nbsp;If someone can get this to the floor (a very daunting task indeed), feel free to do so:<br /><br />WHEREAS God has blessed the work of our district's campus ministry at the<br />University of Minnesota for more than eight decades, and<br /><br />WHEREAS many of our fellow members of synod have urged the Minnesota<br />South District to not sell the campus ministry in Minneapolis, or to<br />leave the decision on a sale to the district convention, and<br /><br />WHEREAS University Lutheran Chapel of Minneapolis has also sought to<br />have the sale of the property decided by the district convention in a<br />clear and unambiguous vote on the merits of the proposed sale, and<br /><br />WHEREAS numerous errors, difficulties, ambiguities and confusion have<br />been discovered in the District's governing documents most notably in<br />2006 and later, and<br /><br />WHEREAS efforts to correct these errors in 2007 were not reported to<br />the 2009 convention in accordance with bylaw 4.2.17 and have led to<br />even greater confusion and ambiguity, be it<br /><br />RESOLVED that the sale of the campus ministry in Minneapolis be<br />decided by the convention in a year of their choosing, and be it<br />further<br /><br />RESOLVED that a committee be appointed with all urgency by the newly<br />elected District President to reexamine the condition and validity of<br />the District's governing documents and especially the Articles of<br />Incorporation, and be it further<br /><br />RESOLVED that this committee bring its findings and proposed actions<br />regarding the governing documents and Articles of Incorporation to the<br />2016 convention of the Minnesota South District, and be it finally<br /><br />RESOLVED that this committee present its findings with all urgency to<br />the newly elected District President and Directors and advise them on<br />the validity of the attempted sale of the campus ministry property in<br />Minneapolis.Administratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06152556530973824159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2104583025219276778.post-18022147638990171502012-06-14T19:48:00.001-07:002012-06-14T23:01:34.653-07:00It's Recission Time! The "Do Over" Bylaw.We have examined in an earlier post the curious case of the conflicting sets of Articles of Incorporation filed by the president of the Minnesota South District of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod here:<br /><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://blog.friendsofulc.org/2012/06/so-who-do-you-believe-district.html">http://blog.friendsofulc.org/2012/06/so-who-do-you-believe-district.html</a></div><div><br /></div><div>The good news is that there is a way to correct errors such as these, and that method is contained in the corporations own bylaws. &nbsp;Here is the "Do Over" Bylaw:</div><div><br /></div><blockquote class="tr_bq">4.2.17&nbsp; Execution of District Resolutions<br /><br />Any district resolution not carried out by the District or the officers responsible for its execution shall be reported to the next convention of the District for re-affirmation or rescission.</blockquote><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div>You can see a .pdf copy here, on page 21:</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQQTNxc3dnWDExOU0">https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQQTNxc3dnWDExOU0</a></div><div><br />So what is "recission"? &nbsp;This being the internet, we have a handy definition from Wikipedia:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">In&nbsp;</span><a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_law" style="background-color: white; background-image: none; color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; text-decoration: none;" title="Contract law">contract law</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">,&nbsp;</span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">rescission</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">&nbsp;has been defined as the unmaking of a contract between parties.</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 13px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Rescission is the unwinding of a transaction. This is done to bring the parties, as far as possible, back to the position in which they were before they entered into a contract (the&nbsp;</span><i style="background-color: white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_ante" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;" title="Status quo ante">status quo ante</a></i><span style="background-color: white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">).</span></blockquote>(From&nbsp;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescission">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescission</a>)<br /><br /></div><div>This means that each convention can literally have a "do over" if a previous resolution has not been carried out. &nbsp;The convention must be informed, and must decide to affirm or reverse (recission) what they have done.</div><div><br /></div><div>The president of the district's sworn affidavit claims that he filed 40 years of convention resolutions that were never executed by the District of its officers:</div><div><br /></div><div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span class="s2">In </span>2007, the District properly filed with the Minnesota Secretary <span class="s3">of </span>State the District's Amended and Restated Articles <span class="s3">of </span>Incorporation. Attached hereto <span class="s4">as </span>Exhibit W is a true and correct copy <span class="s3">of </span>a December 31, 2007, letter from the District's counsel enclosing the Amended and Restated Articles <span class="s5">of </span>Incorporation with a Department <span class="s3">of </span>State date stamp <span class="s3">of </span>December 26, 2007.</blockquote></div><div>That is from page 10, number 39, and the .pdf is posted here:</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQN05XSjhXYXlFazg">https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQN05XSjhXYXlFazg</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Instead of presenting decades of convention resolutions which had not been executed to the convention in 2009, the president filed them himself, and failed to report even that action to the voting members in 2009. &nbsp;He violated bylaw&nbsp;4.2.17 by not allowing his convention their duty to re-affirm or recise their past resolutions which had not been executed.</div><div><br /></div><div>The convention meeting now in 2012 should demand this bylaw be followed, and they be given a "do over" to correct the egregious errors committed by their officers and directors. &nbsp;It's recission time.</div>Administratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06152556530973824159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2104583025219276778.post-51023522208348983122012-06-14T09:46:00.003-07:002012-06-14T09:47:14.744-07:00"Who Told You You Were Naked?" The Dishonest Memorials to the ConventionThere are two pressing questions for the 2012 convention of the Minnesota South District meeting this week in Saint Paul: Does the convention approve of what the Board of Directors has done in attempting to sell the campus ministry in Minneapolis? &nbsp;Or does the convention wish to make that decision themselves?<br /><br />So why is there no memorial in workbook that asks these two simple questions? &nbsp;Why hide from your own pastors and congregations? &nbsp;Why are the president and directors of the district going to such great lengths to avoid direct accountability to the pastors and congregations which they serve?<br /><br />And why are they hiding behind dishonest memorials such as 5-01 and 3-04?<br /><br />In an earlier post we detailed the unfortunate treatment of the president of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod by the president and directors of the Minnesota South District:<br /><br /><a href="http://blog.friendsofulc.org/2012/06/so-who-do-you-believe-president-of.html">http://blog.friendsofulc.org/2012/06/so-who-do-you-believe-president-of.html</a><br /><br />President Harrison of the LCMS, after stating clearly his objection to the sale of the campus ministry at the University of Minnesota, was used by the president and directors of the Minnesota South District as an exhibit in court to support their actions, which Harrison had clearly condemned.<br /><br />And now the officers and directors of the Minnesota South District are trying to do the same thing to their voting members. &nbsp;Resolution 5-01, among others, is asking the convention to ratify the directors attempted sale of the Minneapolis campus ministry, but without explicitly stating this as the intention of the resolution. &nbsp;In the same way that they used President Harrison's letter to dishonestly claim support for what they had done, if Resolution 5-01 or anything like it passes, they will use it as an exhibit in court to claim that their attempted sale of the campus ministry was approved by the convention.<br /><br />This is just wrong. &nbsp;If the directors believe what they claim, that they have to right to sell the Minneapolis campus ministry without the convention, no action by the convention is needed.<br /><br />The voting members in convention should reject memorials like 5-01, 3-04, and any other resolutions that does not do exactly what the directors should have done: bring the question of the sale of the campus ministry properties to their pastors and congregations in convention.<br /><br />God asked Adam in Genesis 3:11 <span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">“Who told you that you&nbsp;</span><i style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">were</i><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">&nbsp;naked?" &nbsp;Those who proposed these memorials meant well by them, but like President Harrison, they are being used by the president and directors of the district to do something wrong. &nbsp;They have become fig leaves, cobbled together to cover the shame of something sinful, wrong and evil.</span></span>Administratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06152556530973824159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2104583025219276778.post-41648534590177730252012-06-13T16:44:00.001-07:002012-06-13T20:37:07.761-07:00So Who Do You Believe? The District President in 2007, or in 2009, or in 2012?Previous posts here have examined the documents related to the attempt by the Minnesota South District Board of Directors of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod to sell the campus ministries in Mankato and Minneapolis. &nbsp;A recurring conclusion from the documents themselves is that the president of the Minnesota South District has an unfortunate knack for saying things in sworn affidavits that are demonstrably false. &nbsp;A previous post asked "Who do you believe? &nbsp;The president of the synod, or the president of the district?" &nbsp;We're suggesting you believe the president of the synod, for the reason given above.<br /><br />But now we have a surprising new question: Who do you believe? &nbsp;The district president in 2007, or in 2009, or in 2012? <br /><br />First we have the "Restated and Amended Articles of Incorporation" from 2007, which the district president swears are valid. &nbsp;Here is Article III, Section 2 "Meetings", subsection a"<br /><br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span class="s1"><b>Section 2. Meetings </b></span><span class="s2"><b>a.<br /><span class="Apple-tab-span"> </span></b></span><br />The regular meetings <span class="s3">of </span>this corporation, called District Convention, shall be held <span class="s4">in </span>the year&nbsp;<span class="s4">in </span><span class="s3">which the </span>general convention <span class="s5">of </span>THE LUTHERAN <span class="s6">CHURCH-MISSOURI </span>SYNOD is held.</blockquote><br />You can see a .pdf of the original here (see page 7, page 6 of the Articles themselves):<br /><br /><a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQZzNYeFBzZ1hZdXc">https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQZzNYeFBzZ1hZdXc</a><br /><br />Secondly we have the same section from the district handbook from 2009, which the district president also claims is valid:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Section 2. Meetings</blockquote><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">a) The regular meetings of this corporation, called District Convention, shall be held in the year preceding the year in which the general convention of<span class="Apple-tab-span"> </span>THE<span class="Apple-tab-span"> </span>LUTHERAN<span class="Apple-tab-span"> </span>CHURCH—MISSOURI SYNOD is held.</blockquote><br />Here is a .pdf copy of the original (see page 9 of the .pdf, page 5 of the articles section):<br /><br /><a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQQTNxc3dnWDExOU0">https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQQTNxc3dnWDExOU0</a><br /><br />So, great; which is it? &nbsp;Are the regular meetings "in the year" or "in the year preceding" the "general convention" of the LCMS?<br /><br />Well, according to the district president, the answer is "yes". &nbsp;Or "both". &nbsp;It's hard to tell.<br /><br />Now we come to 2012. &nbsp;Here's what the district president swears to in his May 7, 2012 affidavit to the Fourth District court, on page 9 (Number 36):<br /><br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">At the <span class="s1">2006 </span>Convention, further amendments were made to the District's Articles <span class="s2">of </span>Incorporation and properly approved at the Convention.<span class="Apple-tab-span"> </span>However, prior to filing the <span class="s1">2006 </span>amendments with the Secretary <span class="s3">of </span>State, the District discovered that some prior amended articles had not yet been filed with the Secretary <span class="s2">of </span>State.<span class="Apple-tab-span"> </span>As a result <span class="s2">of </span>that discovery, the District engaged in a review process to ensure that all amendments that had been voted on and approved at previous conventions were accounted for and filed with the Secretary <span class="s4">o f </span>State along with the <span class="s1">2006 </span>amendments.</blockquote>We've posted a .pdf of the district president's May 7, 2012 affidavit here:<br /><br /><a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQN05XSjhXYXlFazg">https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQN05XSjhXYXlFazg</a><br /><br />The district president continues his affidavit with numbers 39 and 40 on page 10:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote><span class="s1">39.<span class="Apple-tab-span"> </span></span><span class="s2">In </span>2007, the District properly filed with the Minnesota Secretary <span class="s3">of </span>State the District's Amended and Restated Articles <span class="s3">of </span>Incorporation. Attached hereto <span class="s4">as </span>Exhibit W is a true and correct copy <span class="s3">of </span>a December 31, 2007, letter from the District's counsel enclosing the Amended and Restated Articles <span class="s5">of </span>Incorporation with a Department <span class="s3">of </span>State date stamp <span class="s3">of </span>December 26, 2007.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">&nbsp;<span class="s1">40.<span class="Apple-tab-span"> </span></span>Every provision <span class="s6">in </span>the 2007 Amended and Restated Articles <span class="s3">of </span>Incorporation that were filed with the Secretary <span class="s3">of </span>State had been properly approved by previous Conventions.</blockquote><br />So who do you believe? &nbsp;The district president in 2007 filing the "amended and restated articles", or the same district president in 2009 in the Handbook for the District?<br /><br />According to the May 7 affidavit by the district president, the Handbook applies. &nbsp;And the amendments which the district presiden filed on his own (and invalid) authority in 2007:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote><span class="s1">37.<span class="Apple-tab-span"> </span></span>This is consistent with the District's <span class="s2"><i>Handbook </i></span>which incorporates the District's Articles <span class="s3">of </span>Incorporation into the materials provided after each convention. The District holds a Convention every <span class="s4">2-3 </span>years. After every Convention, the District publishes a handbook and distributes a printed copy <span class="s3">of </span>the handbook to every congregation.<span class="Apple-tab-span"> </span>Each handbook includes a copy <span class="s5">of </span>the most recent updated Articles <span class="s5">of </span>Incorporation and would include the changes to the articles made at the previous Convention.</blockquote><br /><blockquote><span class="s1">38.<span class="Apple-tab-span"> </span></span>After the <span class="s2">1974 </span>Amendments, every subsequent <span class="s2"><i>Handbook </i></span>distributed to the&nbsp;congregations included the updated language that granted the Board authority to sell the Property.</blockquote>Which is either confusing, or also demonstrably false (this may be a false dichotomy: it's both!) as we have posted earlier on this blog. &nbsp;The 1974 Convention Manual proposed deleting the article reserving the right to sell ULC to the voting members, but the 1974 Convention Proceedings are ambiguous, as to what the convention actually did with the proposed deletion. &nbsp;And, in either event, the presiding officer failed to certify and the secretary of the corporation failed to verify, and all of them failed to file the change with the Minnesota Secretary of State.<br /><br />So in 2012 the district president claims that both the 2009 Handbook and his filing for record with the Secretary of State in 2007 are valid, correct, and proper. &nbsp;But the 2007 and 2009 documents contradict each other in at least one Article.<br /><br />So who do you believe? &nbsp;The President of the Minnesota South District in 2007, or in 2009, or in 2012?<br /><br />We pick "None of the Above".<br /><br />It's time to stop hiding mistakes. &nbsp;It's time for the officers and the directors of the Minnesota South District of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod to admit that their correct, true and valid Articles of Incorporation date from 1966. &nbsp;It's time for them to admit that what happened in 2007, 2009 and 2012 were illegitimate attempts to create an authority to sell that they do not have. &nbsp;And it's time for them to admit that it was wrong for them to deny the decision to sell the campus ministry at ULC to their voting members meeting in convention.<br /><br /><br />Administratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06152556530973824159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2104583025219276778.post-67226382174374654722012-06-13T14:05:00.001-07:002012-06-13T17:04:07.738-07:00So Who Do You Believe? The President of Synod, or the President of the District?Of the many, many unfortunate consequences of the effort by the Officers and Directors of the Minnesota South District to sell the campus ministries in Mankato and Minneapolis perhaps the most sad are the contradictory claims made by the the President of the Synod and the President of the District. &nbsp;The President of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod has, reluctantly, been forced to expose this divide in his letter of June 12, 2012, to the Directors of Minnesota South. &nbsp;We have posted a copy of it here:<br /><br /><a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQX2N6N2hrTEJUdEE">https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQX2N6N2hrTEJUdEE</a><br /><br />The letter is a short one, and the text is reproduced below:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>Dear Directors,</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">&nbsp;As you well know, I have refrained from involvement in the ULC matter. I am compelled, however, to send this note to you as my name has been used, in part, to justify the action of the board in selling ULC. I want to be very clear to you and for the sake of the good people in the Synod who have been so troubled by this whole affair.</blockquote><br /><blockquote>In your presence I acknowledged the board’s legal “right” to sell the chapel. However, I do not in any way, shape, or form, condone the sale of ULC. It is a tragic mistake, which has unleashed a blizzard of sin on all sides. Our life together has been deeply embittered.</blockquote><br /><blockquote>I continue to name you in my daily prayers, as I have from the beginning of this affair, praying the Lord would grant us all repentance and rescue us from our sinful selves.</blockquote><br /><blockquote>Fraternally in Christ,</blockquote><br /><blockquote>Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison, President The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod</blockquote><div class="p1"></div><div class="p1"><br /></div><div class="p1">So how was President Harrison's name "used, in part, to justify the action of the board in selling ULC"? &nbsp;This is exactly what President Lane Seitz did on May 7, in his affidavit to the Fourth District Court of Minnesota, on page 14, Number 60:</div><div class="p1"><br /></div><div class="p1"><a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQN05XSjhXYXlFazg">https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQN05XSjhXYXlFazg</a></div><div class="p1"><br /></div><div class="p1"></div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span class="s2">In </span>an Open Letter to the members <span class="s3">of </span>the <span class="s4">Synod </span>(including <span class="s5">ULC) </span>dated September <span class="s6">11, 2011, </span>the <span class="s4">Synod's </span>President stated, in regard <span class="s4">to </span>the sale <span class="s3">of </span>the District's Property: "There is no question that the Board had the right to do what <span class="s7">it </span>did with the property." Attached hereto as <span class="s6">Exhibit </span><span class="s8">CC </span>is a true and correct copy <span class="s9">of </span>the Synod President's September 20, 2011, letter.</blockquote><br /><br /><div class="p1">So who do you believe, the president of the synod, or the president of the district? &nbsp;Several previous posts on this blog have proven from the documents themselves that the President of the Minnesota South District has an unfortunate habit of swearing affidavits that contain items that are demonstrably false. &nbsp;So we suggest you believe the President of Synod. &nbsp;But check out the documents above for yourself, and let us know if you would like us to post more.</div><div class="p1"><br /></div><div class="p1">We feel very badly for President Harrison, and this is a shame. &nbsp;The president of the Minnesota South District hid vital information from him, and used him to generate a public statement that he could use to support what the directors had done, which contradicted what President Harrison actually communicated. &nbsp;We're guessing that the district president has still not told the synodical president that the board's legal right to sell the chapel is also fictitious, and based on amendments to Articles of Incorporation the district president filed by himself, which makes them void and invalid.&nbsp;</div><div class="p1"><br /></div><div class="p1">We also wonder when the Board of Directors will realize that they too are being used and vital information is being hidden from them.</div>Administratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06152556530973824159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2104583025219276778.post-23162353605358231212012-06-12T23:48:00.003-07:002012-06-13T00:19:48.383-07:00Why Not Read the Docs for Yourself?We here at FriendsOfULC.org have been blogging and posting on the nifty platform provided by Google (www.Blogger.com) in order to keep our readers aware of the ongoing developments in the effort of the directors of the Minnesota South District to sell the campus ministry property which is used by University Lutheran Chapel. &nbsp;We've been sharing the parts of what documents we can here, and we hope to share more as soon as we can.<br /><div><br /></div><div>In the last few days the president and staff of the Minnesota South District have sent a mailing to the convention delegates about the ongoing litigation with University Lutheran Chapel in which they quote the judge writing that ULC has little or no chance of success in their suit. &nbsp;We don't like to speculate too much on what courts do (or not do), largely because conditions (and their rulings) can change. &nbsp;So we leave it up to you the read the docs for yourself. &nbsp;Here is the complete order vacating the courts earlier Temporary Restraining Order (TRO):</div><div><br /></div><div><div class="p1"><a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQczBMVFNaVU0wODQ">https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQczBMVFNaVU0wODQ</a><br /><br />The Minnesota South District has quoted from a section which favors their case, which is fair enough. &nbsp;But apparently they have not quoted the following from page 6:<br /><br />&lt;&lt;<br /><div class="p1">Although the Court recognizes that the South District has taken steps to reduce ULC's potential harms, the Court finds that the irreparable harm ULC would face weigh in favor of granting an injunction over the monetary harms that the South District faces.</div><div class="p1">&gt;&gt;</div><div class="p1"><br />This may be why in the week following the order above the judge required ULC and the Minnesota South District to go to negotiation by August, and why ULC is still in the building at 1101 University Avenue. &nbsp;That can change, however, and we don't know what the court will ultimately do.<br /><br />The judge's lifting ("vacation") of the Temporary Restraining Order does not dismiss ULC's case. &nbsp;ULC's complaint from April 26th is here:<br /><br /><a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQZGJydFZqVGxUZUE">https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQZGJydFZqVGxUZUE</a><br /><br />The judge has not dismissed the complaint, only the restraining order that stopped the eviction of ULC initiated by the Minnesota South District. &nbsp;So unless the judge dismisses the case, it will be heard.</div></div></div>Administratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06152556530973824159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2104583025219276778.post-6187261740790307232012-06-12T23:27:00.003-07:002012-06-13T10:43:28.558-07:00Everybody Makes Mistakes, Part 4: Hiding Mistakes Never Ends WellWhen people make mistakes, their first inclination is to hide. &nbsp;This is "as old as Adam", as the saying goes, &nbsp;perhaps because Adam and Eve hide from God after making their mistake with the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". &nbsp;The second question recorded in the Bible is designed to flush out and bring to the surface both the one hiding, and the mistake that caused him to hide: "Who told you that you were naked?" &nbsp;After admitting his shame at being naked, Adam keeps trying to hide, coming up with more excuses and obfuscation: the serpent, this woman you gave me, etc. &nbsp;All of which increases the shame, and the guilt, and the mistakes.<br /><br />Adam's problem here is our problem as well, and the consequences of the fall continue, including our condition of sinfulness, which is expressed in our shame and hiding from God, which then continues the cycle described above and in other posts on this blog. &nbsp;One secular analogy to God's second question to Adam is the "Watergate" interrogatory: "What did you know, when did you know it, and who did you tell?" &nbsp;The length of time between each of these parts, usually documented by a paper trail, flush out and bring to the surface the one hiding, and the mistakes that caused them to hide.<br /><br />From the paper trail that we can find, it appears that the president of the Minnesota South District knew about the problems with their Articles of Incorporation prior to their 2009 convention. &nbsp;But no record can be found of any discussion of the void and invalid articles in the minutes of their directors meetings, or the convention proceedings from 2009. &nbsp;This raises more questions for the president of the corporation (the District President):<br /><br />1. When did you become aware of the problems with the Articles of Incorporation? &nbsp;In 2006 before, during, or&nbsp;after the convention?<br /><br />2. Did you share this knowledge with your voting members at any time so they might be&nbsp;asked <span class="il">for</span> a remedy, or did you take some kind of action to attempt to correct this problem without informing them?<br /><br />3. Did you share this with your members in convention in 2009, along with the fact&nbsp;that you had filed the changes using your sole (invalid) authority in&nbsp;2007, and allow the convention in 2009 to remedy this?<br /><br />4. Did you share this information with your Directors at any time&nbsp;prior to their action to sell the property?<br /><br />5. Who else was aware of the unfiled amendment changes?<br /><br />6. Did you seek advice concerning how invalidly filed&nbsp;amendments to articles would affect an action taken by the board or&nbsp;officers relying on those invalidly filed amendments?<br /><br />7. Did you tell Synodical President Harrison and Minnesota North&nbsp;District President Fondow that Minnesota South had the right to sell&nbsp;the property at 1101 University Avenue?<br /><br />8. Did you also tell them that&nbsp;this was based on amendments to articles you filed on your&nbsp;own authority and discretion without informing your pastors, congregations, or directors?<br /><br />9. Did you share this information with other officers of the&nbsp;corporation? &nbsp;Which ones, and when?<br /><br />Luckily, we now have a paper trail that can answer some of these questions in the sworn affidavit given by the president to the Fourth Judicial District Court of Minnesota on May 7, 2012. &nbsp;Here is section 36:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TvTDIvNfkp8/T9dq9LkrpzI/AAAAAAAAANc/yRaLrghGpMQ/s1600/AffidavitLS_Page9_Num36.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="278" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TvTDIvNfkp8/T9dq9LkrpzI/AAAAAAAAANc/yRaLrghGpMQ/s640/AffidavitLS_Page9_Num36.png" width="640" /></a></div><br />So presumably we have in this affidavit an answer to question 1: the president knew as early as 2006 about the problem, soon after the convention. <br /><br />The answer to question 2 ("Did you share this knowledge with your voting members at any time so they might be&nbsp;asked&nbsp;<span class="il">for</span>&nbsp;a remedy, or did you take some kind of action to correct this problem without informing them?") is given in the sections 39 and 40 of the affidavit:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hrzEDBJ5GAw/T9f_rw3J_kI/AAAAAAAAANw/P6A8YXr5f_c/s1600/AffidavitLS_page10_Num39-40.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="322" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hrzEDBJ5GAw/T9f_rw3J_kI/AAAAAAAAANw/P6A8YXr5f_c/s640/AffidavitLS_page10_Num39-40.png" width="640" /></a></div><br />So the answer to question 2 is "No, I did not inform them or ask for their remedy, and yes, I acted on my own to try to fix this problem".<br /><br />As demonstrated in earlier posts from the publicly available documentation, both the 2007 and 2009 attempted filings for record with the Secretary of State have insurmountable defects and problems. &nbsp;Number 40 of this affidavit compounds has already been proven to be demonstrably false from the attempted 2007 filing itself:<br /><br /><a href="http://blog.friendsofulc.org/2012/06/everybody-makes-mistakes-part-1.html">http://blog.friendsofulc.org/2012/06/everybody-makes-mistakes-part-1.html</a><br /><br />Previous conventions have never approved "Article III, Section 2: Meetings, a", which the president claims they have in his dubious filing from 2007:<br /><br /><br /><div class="p1">"The regular meetings of this corporation, called District Convention, shall be held in the year in which the general convention of THE LUTHERAN CHURCH–MISSOURI SYNOD is held"</div><br /><br />As pointed out in previous posts on this blog, the corporation's own Article IV requires that amendments must&nbsp;be "verified by the presiding officer" and "certified by the secretary of the corporation" when filing with the Secretary of State. &nbsp;From other documentation we also know that the unfiled articles went back to 1966, forty years prior to the discovery. &nbsp;Since this presiding officer was elected in 1991, and the secretary even later, that would make it impossible for him to be the presiding officer at conventions prior to 1991, and for him and the secretary to "certify" and "verify" these amendments.<br /><br />This points to an answer to question&nbsp;3 ("Did you share this with your members in convention in 2009, along with the fact&nbsp;that you had filed the changes using your sole (invalid) authority in&nbsp;2007, and allow the convention in 2009 to remedy this?"). &nbsp;The answer would be "No".<br /><br />As for questions 4 through 9, and our hope is that the delegates to the convention&nbsp;being held this week&nbsp;will demand answers. &nbsp;They&nbsp;- and apparently the directors - have been kept in the dark for 6 years. &nbsp;It's time to shine a light on what has been kept hidden for far too long.Administratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06152556530973824159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2104583025219276778.post-61176529848546637222012-06-09T17:00:00.002-07:002012-06-09T17:00:16.755-07:00Everybody Makes Mistakes, Part 3: Refusing an Offer for $550,000.00 MoreIn earlier posts, we detailed how mistakes can lead to other mistakes, and be very, very costly. &nbsp;Covering up for earlier mistakes and errors is often a very expensive proposition, and correcting mistakes once those involve can admit them is also expensive.<div><br /></div><div>What is rare, however, is to intentionally cost your corporation $300,000 by hastily signing a purchase agreement with another potential buyer for less money. &nbsp;And, last week, in one of the ongoing hearings in the litigation between University Lutheran Chapel and the Minnesota South District, we may have something even more rare: Doran Development, with which the Treasurer of the District signed a purchase agreement within 10 days of the action of the Board of Directors, apparently has dropped their purchase price for the University Lutheran Chapel property from 3.5 million to 3.25 million. &nbsp;Common sense, of course, would dictate that the seller (whatever legitimacy their actions may or may not have) then place the property back on the market, especially when they know they can get a better offer.</div><div><br /></div><div>In this case, however, the seller already knew that Doran's offer of 3.5 million was already beaten by a 3.8 million dollar offer from CPM Development. &nbsp;And, in addition to offering more, CPM would also "keep a space designated for campus ministry on-site. &nbsp;CPM is working on a similar project with another church". &nbsp;This is from the affidavit filed on May 12th with the Fourth Judicial District:</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HxHhOx3R_VA/T9PdpsJndQI/AAAAAAAAAMc/cFdHVRQW4B4/s1600/12MAYCPM-Exhibit.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HxHhOx3R_VA/T9PdpsJndQI/AAAAAAAAAMc/cFdHVRQW4B4/s640/12MAYCPM-Exhibit.png" width="538" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This is from page 2 from the exhibit and affidavit from the president of CPM.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Well, that's unfortunate, but with any luck this fumbling and lack of responsiveness did no harm if CPM's offer was the same or less than Doran's. &nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Oops; apparently not. &nbsp;It looks like about $300,000.00 worth of harm was done:</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-n4vcuZZAnZE/T9Pevz3zUiI/AAAAAAAAAM0/jvfpZ4Ld6Vg/s1600/12MAY_CPM_page3d.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="220" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-n4vcuZZAnZE/T9Pevz3zUiI/AAAAAAAAAM0/jvfpZ4Ld6Vg/s640/12MAY_CPM_page3d.png" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>So CPM made an offer for 3.8 million compared to Doran's 3.5 million. &nbsp;Haste makes waste; had the Treasurer waited for longer than 10 days to sign an agreement, there probably would have been more offers:</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WGk6u3tVu8c/T9PguwqTbsI/AAAAAAAAANI/DGIMptZEZj8/s1600/12MAY_CPM_page4a.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="572" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WGk6u3tVu8c/T9PguwqTbsI/AAAAAAAAANI/DGIMptZEZj8/s640/12MAY_CPM_page4a.png" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">With the developments last week, Doran's 3.5 million has now apparently been reduced to 3.25 million. &nbsp;Even if Doran's offer had remained the same, that would still be $300,000 less than the offer from CPM.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The other striking feature of CPM's offer is that it would allow University Lutheran Chapel space for campus ministry in the new building. &nbsp;And, of course, who knows what offers would have developed if more time were given to the bidding process.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Why the haste? &nbsp;What was the reason for the rush? &nbsp;A reasonable inference would be the officers and directors of the Minnesota South District wanted the sale to go through before they would answer to their voting members at their convention next week, and they wanted to make sure there was no possibility that University Lutheran Chapel would still have space on the property in the new building. &nbsp;Since this has already been done at other campus ministries in the church (for example, at University of Wisconsin Madison) it is staggering to think this did not occur to the officers and directors of the corporation.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">As of this writing, University Lutheran Chapel remains in the building at 1101 University Avenue in Minneapolis, and is still fighting. &nbsp;It's time to reverse this sale, and stop trying to cover over past mistakes by making greater and greater mistakes. &nbsp;God willing, the voting members at the convention next week will do exactly that.</div><div><br /></div>Administratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06152556530973824159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2104583025219276778.post-71049807428958864342012-06-08T11:59:00.001-07:002012-06-08T12:41:29.827-07:00Everybody Makes Mistakes, Part 2: Mistakes Can be CostlyMistakes can be costly. &nbsp;Sometimes the cost of correcting mistakes overwhelms those who make the mistakes. &nbsp;This can cause them to make other mistakes, to avoid correcting the previous mistakes, and this vicious cycle can continue for a very long time.<br /><br />The sad part is that this is all avoidable. &nbsp;Admitting the mistake and correcting the mistake is the God pleasing and best way to break the vicious cycle. &nbsp;Christians can recognize an analogy to the condition of the sinner in this self perpetuating closed loop of mistakes to hide previous mistakes. &nbsp;Martin Luther, quoting Saint Augustine, called the human condition of sin "incurvatus in se". &nbsp;That is, our nature is "turned in upon itself" by the first sin, so that it seeks all things - even God Himself - for its own sake. &nbsp;This is one of the reasons why Lutherans believe that God must break through this closed loop of human efforts seeking to justifying ourselves by something within ourselves. &nbsp;There is no "Christ Plus", that is, "Christ Plus" our works, our will, our intellect, our discipline, our obedience, our piety, our cleverness. &nbsp;There is just Chist Alone, given to us in faith by the Holy Spirit using the Word and the Sacraments. &nbsp;God saves us without regard to anything that is in us, to paraphrase Saint Augustine.<br /><br />Perhaps the greatest tragedy of this closed loop of mistakes and sin is the efforts of those "inside the loop" to attract and pull in those "outside the loop". &nbsp;The insiders will rush decisions and actions so that the outsiders (those members to whom they answer or who disagree with them) will have great difficulty correcting their mistakes. &nbsp;This will often involve signing contracts and agreements that make correcting their errors extremely expensive. &nbsp;The outsiders are then faced with an unpalatable choice: doing the right thing and correcting the mistakes of the insiders, sometimes at a high cost, or doing the wrong thing, and being drawn into the closed loop in order to avoid the cost of correcting the errors.<br /><br />This post continues our examination of the decision of the Board of Directors of the Minnesota South District of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod to sell the campus ministries at Mankato and Minneapolis. &nbsp;While the wording here may be a bit clumsy, the "insiders" are the directors, officers and staff of the District, and the outsiders are the members of the corporation, the pastors and churches that make up the voting membership. &nbsp;The closed loop in this case began years ago with the failure of previous officers to follow the corporations own article. &nbsp;It was compounded in 2007 and 2009 by filing void and invalid articles with the Minnesota Department of State. &nbsp;And it reached its current state with the decision to sell those two properties, and signing a contract for sale for the campus ministry in Minneapolis.<br /><br />And the cost of their mistakes are indeed high. &nbsp;This is from their own exhibit AA given to the Minnesota Fourth District Court:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lW-KmACqa1E/T9JC-vI3piI/AAAAAAAAAMI/16qC5ZiXA0M/s1600/ExhibitAA-MNS.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="418" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lW-KmACqa1E/T9JC-vI3piI/AAAAAAAAAMI/16qC5ZiXA0M/s640/ExhibitAA-MNS.png" width="640" /></a></div><br />This is from the company which signed the purchase agreement in a letter dated May 3, 2012. &nbsp;The purchase agreement here is the one signed by the Treasurer of the Corporation 10 (ten) days after the directors moved to sell the campus ministry at Minneapolis for "no less than" 3.2 million, and delegated the sale to the Treasurer of the corporation.<br /><br />In fairness to the Treasurer, it must be said that she was placed in a very difficult position. &nbsp;The directors had been asked, repeatedly, for years to bring the decision of a sale to their voting members in convention. &nbsp;The next convention is the second week of June. &nbsp;The directors knew that the proposed sale was extremely unpopular, and would be opposed vigorously by their members. &nbsp;They should have approved the purchase agreement (and taken the well deserved criticism for it) themselves. &nbsp;That would have been the right thing to do, instead of hiding behind a delegated action and giving the appearance of "clean hands". &nbsp;This also gives the appearance that they are hiding from their members by completing the sale before the voting members meeting in convention in June.<br /><br />But the Treasurer, for some odd reason or number of reasons, failed to help herself by not bringing the purchase agreement back to the directors before signing, and by signing the purchase agreement in just 10 (ten) days after the directors delegated the sale. &nbsp;This raises a number of questions, including:<br /><br />1. Given that the purchase agreement would expose your corporation to significant claims, did you seek advice from a real estate attorney or other&nbsp;<span class="il">competent</span> <span class="il">professional in that 10 day period&nbsp;</span>before you signed the purchase agreement?<br /><br />2. If you did seek advice before you signed the purchase agreement, when did it take place, and what did they say to you about&nbsp;the liability the corporation might face under sections 17, 8(g) and&nbsp;8(l) of the purchase agreement?<br /><br />3. If you did not seek advice, what kind, and what were the results, of the research&nbsp;and diligence you performed in the ten (10) day period between the&nbsp;director's motion and your signature of the purchase agreement?<br /><br />4. What kind and sort of negotiation did you do with other prospective purchasers&nbsp;during this ten (10) day period? &nbsp;Did any kind of&nbsp;discussions or negotiations take place before the ten (10) day period? &nbsp;&nbsp;Did you attempt, or were you advised to attempt, to have the purchaser delete&nbsp;or modify sections 17, 8(g) and 8(l) of the purchase agreement which&nbsp;are now the basis used to seek a minimum of $428,354 from your&nbsp;corporation?<br /><div><br /></div><div>The voting members of the corporation will have a choice at their convention in June. &nbsp;Do they do nothing, and become part of this cycle of error? &nbsp;Or do they do the right thing, and correct these mistakes?</div>Administratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06152556530973824159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2104583025219276778.post-90110702262959060452012-06-02T16:34:00.000-07:002012-06-03T19:40:55.890-07:00Everybody Makes Mistakes, Part 1Everybody makes mistakes. &nbsp;Each and every one of us "falls short of the goal", as Saint Paul tells us in his letter to Romans (and elsewhere). &nbsp;What differentiates us is how we proceed after we make a mistake. &nbsp;Do we admit our mistakes and ask others to forgive and help us? &nbsp;Or do we deny them, or try to cover them up, or try to plaster over them with excuses? &nbsp;These are the only two trajectories, two directions, that are possible.<br /><br />For Christians, we recognize this dilemma, and know that "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. &nbsp;But if we confess our sins, God Who is faithful and just will forgive our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness". &nbsp;To deny the mistake, and the sin, has disastrous consequences for the soul, which then has eliminated its return to God in Christ, and so must turn toward that damning trajectory, which seeks self-justification apart from God in Christ. &nbsp;There are only two religions, regardless of what you may call your particular beliefs: the religion of works, and the religion of faith. &nbsp;Only the second can return us to Our Savior, and that cannot happen if we deny and cover up our mistakes, our sin.<br /><br />The analogy to this in our civil society, in the Kingdom of this World, is the saying, "It's not the deed; It's the cover up." &nbsp;Relatively minor mistakes that could be corrected become the source of greater and greater misdeeds, and even criminality, in an effort to hide and justify the original mistake. &nbsp;We regularly see this played out on the part of those with power and authority. &nbsp;This type of political theatre is loved by the press, and they either love to cover it (or cover it up) in exquisite detail (depending on how much they like or dislike the political persuasion of those in power). &nbsp;Sometimes they get away with it, sometimes they do not. &nbsp;But the calculus is the same: the original misdeed is dwarfed by the cover up which grows from it. &nbsp;And it could all be avoided by admitting the original mistake, and dealing with it openly, honestly, and directly.<br /><br />We have remarked in other posts on this blog about the efforts of the&nbsp;Board of Directors of the Minnesota South District of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod to sell the campus ministries in Mankato and Minneapolis, and how their action followed several efforts to amend the Articles of Incorporation in ways that violated those same Articles. &nbsp;What began as a series of oversights and simple mistakes over decades could have been easily corrected if the officers and directors of that corporation had gone to the voting members in the person of the District President and said, "We have a problem. &nbsp;Our Articles of Incorporation have not been validly amended or filed since our last valid set in 1966. &nbsp;We made a mistake in not going to you earlier with this, we're sorry, and we're asking you to openly and honestly to fix this, because you, the voting members, are the only body who can do this."<br /><br />That did not happen. &nbsp;The convention meeting in 2006 was not told about these problems, and this cover up was repeated in 2009. &nbsp;Instead, in 2007, the District President tried to fix these mistakes with yet another cover up by filing for record with the Minnesota Secretary of State "Restated and Amended" Articles of Incorporation, some of which had not been stated or amended (see&nbsp;http://blog.friendsofulc.org/2012/05/are-these-articles-valid-part-4-how-do.html). &nbsp;That same District President has now maintained in a sworn affidavit in the litigation with University Lutheran Chapel that his filing of articles in 2007 and 2009 are indeed valid.<br /><br />But cover ups always lead to other problems, and they get worse. &nbsp;Consider this article which the District President "restated" in 2007 with the Department of State:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Z29KiwzadqQ/T8lmU0FQbvI/AAAAAAAAALk/gmAa-0ZvUf0/s1600/2007MNSArtIIISec2Meetings.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="82" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Z29KiwzadqQ/T8lmU0FQbvI/AAAAAAAAALk/gmAa-0ZvUf0/s640/2007MNSArtIIISec2Meetings.png" width="640" /></a></div><br />To repeat: "The regular meetings of this corporation, called District Convention, shall be held in the year in which the general convention of THE LUTHERAN CHURCH–MISSOURI SYNOD is held"<br /><br />This is&nbsp;Article&nbsp;III, Section 2 ("Meetings") a, which the president of the corporation claims he had the authority to file on his own ("on behalf of the corporation"), and which he has sworn are valid articles for the corporation.<br /><br />Several difficulties arise from the language of this article, in addition to the claim that is "restated" or "amended":<br /><br />1. It is not now, nor has it been, true, at least not for the last several decades, and possibly the last century. &nbsp;No regular meetings ("District Conventions") are held in the same year as the general convention of the LCMS. &nbsp;They are now held the year before the general convention of the LCMS ("THE LUTHERAN CHURCH–MISSOURI SYNOD").<br /><br />2. This would mean that the president of the corporation has once again in a sworn affidavit claimed something to be true which is demonstrably false, and this time he has done so before the Fourth District Court of the State of Minnesota. &nbsp;He now has sworn affidavits with the Department of State and the District Court which contain facts and material that are demonstrably false (at the least).<br /><br />3. Because the president of the corporation claims that these articles filed in 2007 are "Amended and Restated", there is another problem. &nbsp;He must now find the convention proceedings where this language was presented with 30 days notice and passed by 2/3's. &nbsp;Good luck with that. &nbsp;Even the most brain dead and comatose convention (or floor committee) would have caught this.<br /><br />4. Since he has sworn (twice now) that these are valid articles, he must also admit that his own district convention in 2009 was not a regular meeting, nor was it a validly called special session or meeting. &nbsp;The "general convention of THE LUTHERAN CHURCH-MISSOURI SYNOD" was held in 2010, and the next one is 2013.<br /><br />5. This would also mean that in addition to the 2009 convention, the next district convention, scheduled for June 14, 2012, is also invalid, and should not meet. &nbsp;It raises all sorts of questions about the current officers of the corporation, especially the directors. &nbsp;Is their election at an invalid meeting in 2009 valid? &nbsp;Are the actions they have taken valid? &nbsp;Did they not only authorize the sale of something they could not (the campus ministries in Mankato and Minneapolis), but are they even a valid board of directors that can take any action?<br /><br />6. It also calls into further question the one responsibility that the presiding officer of the convention does have in the process to amend articles of incorporation, that they must be "certified by the presiding officer". &nbsp;If the district officer is making that claim for these 2007 articles (and he appears to be), then he has certified language that likely was never approved by the voting members (or even presented). &nbsp;Combine this with the deletion of the crucial article reserving the right to sell University Lutheran Chapel to the voting members (see&nbsp;http://blog.friendsofulc.org/2012/05/are-these-articles-valid-part-3-1974.html and other posts here), and we have in this 2007 document fictitious language inserted which the voting members never saw, and valid language removed from the real and true set of articles filed in 1966.<br /><br />Everybody makes mistakes. &nbsp;It's time for the officers of the Minnesota South District of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod to admit theirs, and stop trying to fix what only the voting members can remedy. &nbsp;Mistakes such as these could have been so easily avoided, if only the earlier mistakes had been taken openly and honestly to the voting members. &nbsp;&nbsp;It's time to stop the cover up, and it's time to reverse the decision to sell the campus ministries in Minneapolis and Mankato.<br /><br />It would be far, far better to stop this now before the ongoing litigation between University Lutheran Chapel and the Minnesota South District results in more sworn affidavits by the officers of the corporation before more jurisdictions that will also be shown to contain false material and statements.<br /><br />Mistakes can be expensive. &nbsp;We have all made mistakes that cost us money, sometimes a great deal of money. &nbsp;But the cost of saving money by refusing to admit and correct a mistake is tragically incalculable beyond a dollar figure. &nbsp;That cost is the cost of souls alienated from God, cut off from the Redemption that Christ has given us. &nbsp;And God is calling us all to repent:<br /><br /><br /><div class="TXTONEHALF" style="background-color: #f9fdff; color: #001320; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; margin-left: 35px; margin-top: 15px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 15px;">"Today, if you hear his voice,</span></div><div class="VRSONE" style="background-color: #f9fdff; color: #001320; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; margin-left: 25px; text-align: justify;">do not harden your hearts as you did at Meribah,<span class="nivfootnote" style="color: #0066aa; font-size: 12px; font-style: italic; font-weight: 700; margin-left: 1px; margin-right: 1px;"><sup></sup></span></div><div class="TXTTWO" style="background-color: #f9fdff; color: #001320; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; margin-left: 60px; text-align: justify;">as you did that day at Massah&nbsp;in the desert"</div><br /><br />The voters at the next convention will probably be asked to make yet another mistake, and participate in yet another cover up, and the excuse they will be given will be the legal and financial exposure that the officers and directors have incurred by their earlier mistakes, and their earlier cover ups. &nbsp;They should refuse, reverse what the directors have done, and begin the task that we as a church should be about: reconciliation to each other, and reconciliation to the truth. &nbsp;We dare not place any soul in jeopardy by voting to join them in their sin and rebellion from God and from the truth. &nbsp;This has already had disastrous consequences for other churches - and especially for our fellow Lutherans in the ELCA.<br /><br />Everybody makes mistakes. &nbsp;Mistakes can be costly, but we can fix this, and in the right way, the God pleasing way.Administratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06152556530973824159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2104583025219276778.post-63788299440065340332012-05-23T22:21:00.001-07:002012-05-23T23:21:37.397-07:00Are These Articles Valid, Part 5: The invalid amendments from 2007 to 2009We continue in this post to examine the details of the decision by the Board of Directors of the Minnesota South District of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod to sell the campus ministries in Mankato and Minneapolis. &nbsp;Previous posts have given the source documents to establish that the last valid Articles of Incorporation for the Minnesota South District are from 1966. &nbsp;In this post we examine the changes from the two questionable filings of their Articles of Incorporation from 2007 and 2009.<br /><div><br /></div><div>While the filings for both years fail the corporations own standard and process for amending articles given in Article IV, it is instructive to see what changes were proposed in 2009. &nbsp;Here are the amendments from each year:</div><div><br /></div><div>2009 Article III Section 3d:</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kKUIBCY1tW8/T72lghjGYLI/AAAAAAAAAKA/cl-cKlQEgyo/s1600/2009MNSArt3Sec3d.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="122" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kKUIBCY1tW8/T72lghjGYLI/AAAAAAAAAKA/cl-cKlQEgyo/s640/2009MNSArt3Sec3d.png" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">2007 Article III Section 3d:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SbliMzIVK8g/T72lr1lDNQI/AAAAAAAAAKg/Lzc1Yoct8dU/s1600/2007MNSArt3Sec3d.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="72" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SbliMzIVK8g/T72lr1lDNQI/AAAAAAAAAKg/Lzc1Yoct8dU/s640/2007MNSArt3Sec3d.png" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">And the 1966 Article III Section 3d:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RMCadPVgi7I/T72nAm4a_6I/AAAAAAAAAK4/N0R25rDsItY/s1600/1966MNSArt3Sec3d.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="68" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RMCadPVgi7I/T72nAm4a_6I/AAAAAAAAAK4/N0R25rDsItY/s640/1966MNSArt3Sec3d.png" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Now for the second amendment:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">2009 Article III Section 3d Subsection 3:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MA53QsGnYD4/T72lg-hXvnI/AAAAAAAAAKE/aqael2Yg-QY/s1600/2009MNSArt3Sec3dSub3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="112" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MA53QsGnYD4/T72lg-hXvnI/AAAAAAAAAKE/aqael2Yg-QY/s640/2009MNSArt3Sec3dSub3.png" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">2007 Article III Section 3d Subsection 3:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YGGlWKu3C70/T72lrpy6wXI/AAAAAAAAAKc/p8uJbhs8gec/s1600/2007MNSArt3Sec3dSub3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="54" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YGGlWKu3C70/T72lrpy6wXI/AAAAAAAAAKc/p8uJbhs8gec/s640/2007MNSArt3Sec3dSub3.png" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">And the last valid Articles of Incorporation, the 1966&nbsp;Article III Section 3d Subsection 3:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xu_oMs8uBJ0/T72nBDhDK2I/AAAAAAAAAK8/Is-4_qukp2k/s1600/1966MNSArt3Sec3dSub3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="122" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xu_oMs8uBJ0/T72nBDhDK2I/AAAAAAAAAK8/Is-4_qukp2k/s640/1966MNSArt3Sec3dSub3.png" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">And there is the rub. &nbsp;The 1966 wording contradicts the later readings of the same Article, Section and Subsection in 2007 and 2009.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Confused? &nbsp;You should be.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The reasons for this may be varied, but there is an explanation for one aspect. &nbsp;Handbook committees dutifully recorded changes to the Handbook after each convention, including amendments to the articles. &nbsp;But those same amendments never made it to completion. &nbsp;The presiding officers failed to "certify" them, and the secretaries of the corporation failed to "verify" them, and all of the officers failed to file them "with the secretary of the State of Minnesota, according to law" for over 40 years, from 1966 to 2007. &nbsp;That tradition continues to this day, because the efforts to file the amendments in 2007 and 2009 also share the same failures as explained in previous posts.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">We gain some clarity by seeing&nbsp;the 1966&nbsp;Article III Section 3d Subsections 3 and 4 together:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PWl3gjIhyJo/T723bE0KmuI/AAAAAAAAALU/APV_RBgzxio/s1600/1966MNSArt3Section3dSubs3-4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="192" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PWl3gjIhyJo/T723bE0KmuI/AAAAAAAAALU/APV_RBgzxio/s640/1966MNSArt3Section3dSubs3-4.png" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This had to be a mystery to anyone who carefully read the Handbook of the corporation from 1974 until 2007. &nbsp;The deletion of Subsection 3 above was proposed in 1974, but failed because it was never verified by the presiding officer, certified by the secretary, or filed (as pointed out in the previous posts). &nbsp;But the Handbook Committee marched on in spite of this and changed the Handbook to delete the section, so here is how the Handbook would have read, from sections 2 to the new section 3:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><blockquote class="tr_bq">...<br />2. To administer legacies and trust funds for the uses and purposes for which they are designated or specified.<br />3. The Board shall have authority to mortgage, sell, encumber, lease or dispose of any <b><u><i>other</i></u></b> real estate without authorization by its voting members.<br />...</blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">We've emphasized the word "other", because while it is non-sensical, it is still the correct reading. &nbsp;That's because section 3 is the old section 4. &nbsp;But without the original section 3 in the Handbook, to what "real estate" would "other" have referred? &nbsp;The Handbook Committee in 1974 proposed to delete Subsection 3 but did not propose to change the wording of Subsection 4. &nbsp;That makes the resulting wording odd, to say the least. &nbsp;Perhaps that is why no vote totals are recorded for the amendments proposed in 1974, and why the "reading" was sent back to committee. &nbsp;It's possible someone caught this error, pointed it out, and the proposed amendment did not receive 2/3's vote (as noted in a previous post).</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">So who was aware of this? &nbsp;Why would they try to "correct" this language in 2007 and 2009 without bringing it to the attention of the voting members in convention? &nbsp;Did they notify anyone else - say, the directors of the corporation - of the problems with the Articles of Incorporation? &nbsp;And&nbsp;why would they change the phrase "without authorization by its voting members" (present in the valid 1966 articles and repeated in the invalid 2007 articles) to "without a specific vote by the corporation's voting members" in the invalid 2009 articles?</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">If the officers of the corporation were contemplating the sale of ULC ("1101 University Avenue SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota") without the approval of their voting members as early as the 2006 convention, why would they not openly and honestly ask to correct these problems with the Articles of Incorporation to allow them to do so? &nbsp;Why file what appear to be cosmetic amendments to the articles in 2009, when they could have explained the problems to the voting members at that year's convention and asked them to correct them? &nbsp;And why file an entire set of "restated and amended articles" in 2007 without presenting them before or after to the voting members in convention in 2006 or 2009?</div>Administratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06152556530973824159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2104583025219276778.post-77382595717999654062012-05-23T11:15:00.001-07:002012-05-23T23:32:14.460-07:00Are These Articles Valid, Part 4: How do you "restate" something never stated?For those who are new to this blog, this is not a philosophical question. &nbsp;We're going through, in several posts, the "nuts and bolts" of the decision of the Minnesota South District of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod to sell the campus ministry properties in Mankato and Minneapolis. &nbsp;Our focus has been on the Minnesota South District's own Articles of Incorporation which question if the officers of the corporation (Directors, President, and others) have ignored, violated - or even fabricated - the corporation's own governing documents. &nbsp;This post concentrates on the "Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation" filed by the District President in 2007.<br /><br />Earlier posts have pointed out how the 2007 and 2009 amendments to the articles fail to meet the corporation's own standards and process for amendment, spelled out in Article IV. &nbsp;But in 2007 we see the condition of invalidity brought to an even greater level (or depth, in this instance).<br /><br />So the short answer to the question is, "You can't. &nbsp;You have to state the thing first."<br /><br />So how do you do this?<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wieMm5N8KNQ/T70XmtqTFWI/AAAAAAAAAJs/Y4Jqq2_EFmw/s1600/2007MNSArticlesP1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="168" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wieMm5N8KNQ/T70XmtqTFWI/AAAAAAAAAJs/Y4Jqq2_EFmw/s640/2007MNSArticlesP1.png" width="640" /></a></div><br />This is from page 1 of the 2007 articles filed for record with the Secretary of the State of Minnesota. &nbsp;Then follow all the proposed article changes going back to the last valid Articles of Incorporation filed for record in 1966. &nbsp;Among the many other problems with this document we can add the word "RESTATED". &nbsp;It is impossible to&nbsp;"restate" articles that have never been "stated" with the secretary previously. &nbsp;As demonstrated in an earlier post, the corporation filed no changes in their articles from 1966 until this interesting attempt in 2007. &nbsp;Only articles that have already been validly and properly filed can be "restated", and that is done to aggregate several different sets of amendments into one document with the state government.<br /><br />At the very least, this creates a mess. &nbsp;The only articles that can be restated are the ones that were correctly filed in 1963 and correctly&nbsp;amended&nbsp;and&nbsp;filed&nbsp;in 1966. &nbsp;Any proposed article changes from 1966 to 2007 cannot be restated, because they were never stated (filed for record). &nbsp;The only valid amendments that could be filed would be those approved "by two-thirds majority of the delegates voting on said amendment, certified by the presiding officer, verified by the secretary of the corporation and recorded with the secretary of the State of Minnesota, according to law."<br /><br />The problems multiply, because there are, logically, a limited number of options:<br /><br />1. The only articles that can be restated are those already stated in 1963 and 1966.<br /><br />2. The only amendments that can be filed for record are the those certified by the presiding officer.<br /><br />3. The only amendments that this District President can verify are those after 1991, when he became the presiding officer.<br /><br />4. The District President claims in his sworn affidavit in 2007, and again in 2009, that he has "the authority to sign this document on behalf of the corporation".<br /><br />5. The only authority the District President can have in this case is from the Articles of Incorporation themselves when he is the "presiding officer" at a meeting to certify the amendment ("certified by the presiding officer", Article IV).<br /><br />6. Unless he can demonstrate otherwise from the articles or some action by the voting members, his sworn affidavit is, at best, incorrect.<br /><br />7. The last amendments&nbsp;"verified by the secretary of the corporation" were in 1966, which verification is lacking from the&nbsp;attempted&nbsp;filings for record in&nbsp;2007 and 2009.<br /><br />And, of course, all the other defects pointed out in previous posts.Administratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06152556530973824159noreply@blogger.com0